LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

S^Hp ©xtjpirinW l|xi* 

Shelf.. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



THE 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOTJL. 



BY LUTHER LEE, 

MIMSTEE OP THE GOSPEL^ 



Who kttoweth the -pirit of mail that goeth upward, and thi 
Spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth. 




NEW-YORK: 

PUBLISHED AT THE WESLEYAN METHODiSf BOOl- 
ROOM, BfO. 6 SPRtjCE-STREET. 




13"^^ 2 1 



Entered according to the Act of Congress in the year 1849, 

BY L. C. MATLACK & L. LEE, 

In the Clerk's OfSce of the District Court of the Southern Distrfci 
of New-Yor^ 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE IMMATERIALITY OF MIND — MIND IS SPIRIT AN© 
NOT MATTER. 

SECTION I. 

An argument founded upon the power of volition, self-deter- 
mination and self-action 0 

SECTION II. 

An argument founded upon the intellectual powers of the 
mind— Matter cannot think, is not intelligent . , .14 

SECTION KL 
An argument founded upon the mental phenomena of memory 26 

SECTION IV. 

The immateriality of mind proved from its consciousness of 
identity and responsibility . e 32 

SECTION Y 

The immateriality of mind proved from the nature of its de- 
sires 38 



SECTION VI 

The immateriality of mind concluded— The Bible argument, 
in which it is shown that the Sacred Writers took it for 
granted that the common doctrine was understood and be- 
lieved 44 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER II. 



THE RATIOTfAIi S0T7L. OF MAN DOES NOT DIE WITH THB 
BODY, BUT MAINTAms A CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE AFTEH 
THE BODY IS DEAD. 

SECTION I. 

An argument from the immateriality, or spiritual nature of 
the soul 57 

SECTION II. 

An argument founded upon the common sentiment of man- 
kind • . . 64 

SECTION m. 

An argument founded upon the well-known opinions of the 
Jews 75 

SECTION IV. 

The Primitire Church believed that the soul maintained a 
conscious existence after the death of the hody . , .82 

SECTION V. 

Direct Scriptural proof that the soul lives after the hody is 
dead * • • • . . . w . . .95 



CHAPTER III. 

THE WICKED WILL. NOT BE ANNIHILATED, OR CEASE TO 
EXIST, AT, NOR SUBSEQUENTLY TO, THE GENERAL 
RESURRECTION. 

SECTION I. 

An argument Irom the immateriality of the soul, and its con- 
scious existence between death and the resurrection , . 125 

SECTION n. 

The penalty of the Law is not annihilation, but suffering . 127 

SECTION III. 
The same subject continued .••«••• 134 



CONTENTS. 



SECTION IV. . 
The same su"bject concluded • • 143 

SECTION V. 

An argument from those Scriptures which, in various ways, 
represent the punishment of sinners as consisting in actual 
suffering, and not in annihilatioUj or loss of existence . . 149 



CHAPTER IV. 

OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ANSWERED. 
SECTION I. 

Answer to the objection that our theory of the human mind, 
and our method of proving it from its own phenomena, will 
prove that brutes have immortal souls . , « . . 159 

SECTION IL 

Reply to the assumption that the term death expresses anni- 
hilation, when applied to the punishment of sinners . . 169 

SECTION III. 

Reply to the assumption that the word destruction means an- 
nihilation, or loss of existence 176 

SECTION IV. 

Reply to the assumpJion that the word perish signifies anni- 
hilation 181 



PREFACE. 



Tlie author of this little volume judges it no act of 
vanity to set up the following claims for his work : 

1. The subject of which it treats is vastly import-dnt. 
Whether we have a spiritual nature, or no spiritual 
nature — whether dying is passing out of existence, or 
to another state of existence in a world of disembodied 
spirits— and whether sinners who reject the gospel, are 
to cease to exist, cease to know, and think, and feel, or 
to exist, and know, and think, and feel forever, are 
;natters of too great importance to be passed by without 
receiving the most profound consideration. 

2. In this little volume will be found all the essential 
features of these momentous questions, and all the im- 
portant facts and arguments having an essential bear- 
ing upon them. It is believed that so much argument 
and truth, bearing directly on the one point of the 
soul's immortality, cannot be found elsewhere, in any 
one volume. When the author's attention was called 
to the subject, he expected to find it treated in some 
one convenient volume, but he searched in vain for 



6 



PREFACE. 



that volume. Fragments of the subject he could find, 
Bcattered tnrougn yarious woriis, treating in the main 
on other subjects, a fragment here, and a fragment 
there; an incidental allusion to the subject in this 
volume, and a single direct argument in that, but in 
no one volume could he find the subject fully and 
clearly discussed. To supply this deficiency the pre- 
sent volume has been written, and is now presented to 
the Christian Public, who are invited to examine and 
judge with what ability the design has been executed. 
Though many of the views presented are not new, yet 
the author has no fear that the candid reader will be 
in the least inclined to deny his little work the merit 
of a full share of originality. 

B. It is believed that the arrangement of the sub- 
jects, together with the full alphabetical and scriptural 
index, will -much increase its value as a book of refer- 
ence. Any point treated in the work, can be referred 
to in a moment, by means of the index to the subjects; 
while the scriptural index will guide to any text 
quoted, with the remarks that may be made thereon. 

4. That such a publication is demanded by the exi- 
gencies of the times, the author has no doubt. The 
errors opposed, the writer regards as one form of infi- 
delity, rendered more dangerous by taking shelter 
under the name of Christianity, and claiming the sanc- 
tion of the Scriptures. These views, which embrace 
one essential feature of infidelity, called materialism. 



PREFACE. 



7 



received a new and powerful impulse, a few years 
since, by being hitched on to the car of excitement 
which swept over the country, on the subject of the 
immediate second appearing of Christ, to judge the 
world. ^ The connection between the Second Advent 
excitement, and a denial of man's spiritual nature, and 
a belief in materialism, we will not attempt to explain ; 
but the fact is notorious, that many of the most able 
Advent lecturers maintained the doctrine that man has 
no immaterial soul, and that death is the extinction of 
conscious being ; while the excitement about the imme- 
diate appearing of Christ, with which it was connected, 
gave it wings, and power, beyond what it could other- 
wise have acquired. 

Now that the excitemant has measurably passed 
away, enabling its subjects to indulge in sober thoughts, 
this little volume is commended to their attention, 
'with the hopeful prayers of the author that it may be 
instrumental in correcting some of the errors they 
have imbibed. It may also be useful to young and less 
experienced Christians, in guarding them against the 
assaults of infidelity on several points, and in furnishing 
them with the weapons with which they can defend 
themselves against its specious reasoning. If its use- 
fulness be in proportion to the author's honest purpose 
and desire to do good, it will not have been written in 
vain. The Authob. 



1 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



CHAPTER 1. 

THE IMMATERIALITY OF MIND — MIND IS SPIRIT AND 
NOT MATTER 

SECTION I 

An argument founded upon the power of volition, self-determina- 
tion, and self-action. 

The soul or mind is not matter but spirit, and of course 
forms no part of the body. This raises an important 
issne with one class who deny the immortality of the 
soul. There are some who deny the existence of a soul 
or spirit m man, to be contradistinguished from the body, 
and insist that what we call the mind is a mere func- 
tion of the brain, and that the brain itself is intelligent. 

So far as the researches of philosophy extend, there 
are but two primary substances in the universe, and 
these are matter and spirit. All we know of these 
substances is certain properties and phenomena which 
they exhibit. Matter is known to possess the pro- 
perties of Impenetrability, Extension, Figure, Divisi- 
bility, Indestructibility, Inertia, Attraction. Spirit is 
that which thinks, perceives, remembers, reasons, wills^ 
a.nd Is susceptible of love, hatred, joy, and grief. The 
former of these properties are found in our bodies, in 
commo^i with all other matter : the latter constitute the 



10 



IjlMGRTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



phenomena of the mind. It is not reasonable to sup- 
pose that properties so opposite to each other, inhere 
in the same substance, and the only rational conclu- 
sion is that matter is not mind, and that mind is not 
matter. There must therefore be in man an intelligent 
spirit, which forms no part of the body, and this is 
what we call the soul. We reason upon the modern 
and generally admitted principles of natural philoso- 
phy, and unless we are greatly mistaken, the whole 
system of philosophy will have to be exploded to in- 
validate our arguments. 

The admitted properties of m.atter, and the admitted 
properties of mind, cannot inhere in, and be essential 
properties of the same substance. A few illustrations 
will make this plain. 

Inertia, which is an essential property of matter^ 
cannot inhere in the same substance with will or voli^ 
lion, which is an essential property of mind. Inertia 
is that property in matter which renders it incapable of 
self-motion, or self-action ; matter acting only as it is 
acted upon ; will or volition, is that property of mind 
which renders it capable of self determination and self- 
action. Now as matter' can act only a? it is acted 
upon, and as mind has the power of self-action^ they 
cannot be the same substance,— matter cannot be mindi 
and mind cannot be matter. Again, matter can be 
moved only by physical force ] matter acts upon matter 
by contact, and one material body has no power to act 
on another material body, only as their surfaces come 
in contact ] but mind is acted upon by motives, and 
acts from motives, and mind acts on mind through the 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



11 



medium of motives v/ithout physical contact. This 
proves as clear as a sun-beam that matter and mind are 
not the same 

To insist in opposition to the above view, that mind 
is matter ; that intelligence and volition are its inhe- 
rent properties, and consequently that man has no soul, 
which forms no part of his body, must subvert the ad- 
mitted principles of philosophy. Philosophy insists 
that inertia is. an essential property of mattery man's 
body is matter, as shown above, and yet it exhibits 
locomotive povrers, and is seen acting without any 
visible agent acting upon it, and hence the doctrine of 
the inertia of matter must be given up, or we must 
admit that there is a rational soul inhabiting the 
body, which controls it, moves it, and guides it. We 
Bee a steam engine in motion, and we know that the 
power of motion does not reside in any part of the 
machine; that it acts only as it is acted upon. We 
know that the steam propels it, but we know at the 
' same time, that the steam acts only as it is acted upon 
that there is an intelligent, reasonable agent that directs 
the whole. 

So with the body ; it is an animal machine, the bones 
are siuds and braces to support the frame, and are 
levers for the purpose of mechanical action ) the mus- 
cles, by their contractions and distentions, operate on 
^the bones and set the machinery in motion j but the 
muscles, have no intelligence, or volition, and when 
the machine is in ordsr, they are under the control of 
and are guided by the mind. The foot or hand cannot 
will to move ; the eye cannot will to open or shut. 



12 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



This our own consciousness proves. Let any man 
try to will with his foot or hand ; and his own con- 
sciousness, which is the highest proof possible, will 
tell him that there is no power to will in his foot or 
hand. Man can will, and may be conscious of willing 
to move his foot, but at the same time he is conscious 
that his foot does not will, and that he does not will 
with his foot, but that he, his mind, wills concerning 
it. The muscles are put in motion by a power superior 
to themselves, which must be intelligent. Now what 
is this power ? Those who deny that man has a soul, 
which is no part of the body, and which is an imma- 
terial spirit, say that the brain is this self-determining, 
controlling and guiding power. This we deny on' the 
ground, that itis matter, and only matter, and possesses 
only the properties and powers of matter. If it be 
said that there is something in or .associated with the 
brain which is not matter, which is superior to matter, 
the whole argument is given up, for that is just what 
we contend for, and that superior something which is 
not matter, we call the soul. If it be said that the 
brain is only matter, then however refined it may be, 
it possesses only the properties of matter, one of w^hich 
is inertia, directly the reverse of self-operation. The 
brain then cannot act only as it is acted upon, and we 
come back to the question, what is this superior power 
that sets the muscles in motion, when we will to move 
the foot or the hand 1 If it now be said that it is the 
brain, we ask what power acts upon the brain, causing 
it to act on the muscles ? The brain being matter, can 
act only as acted upon. We have then got to give up 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



13 



the first principles of Natural Philosophy, or seek iot 
some higher cause of the phenomenon of motion. We 
allow that the muscles operate on the hones, that the 
hrain operates on the muscles, through the nerves, all 
the nerves and spinal marrow terminating in the brain; 
but we insist at the same time, that there is an intelli- 
gent soul which acts on the brain, or it would never 
act. This doctrine being admitted, the phenomena of 
matter and mind are made to harmonize without in- 
volving any philosophical contradiction, or absurdity; 
deny it, and the principles of Natural Philosophy, which 
past ages have developed and matured, are thrown 
back into chaos, and we have got to begin, de novo, and 
grope our way in search of first principles. 

The above view accords with our own conscious- 
ness. Every man is conscious of thinking, but we are 
not conscious of thinking with any part of our body, 
not even the brain. That the head is the seat of the 
intelligence, no rational man can doubt; we are con- 
scious that the thinking operation is carried on within 
the head, but no man is conscious that his brains 
think. The rational soul is mysteriously united to the 
body, and the brain is doubtless the point of union, and 
constitutes the medium through which the soul holds 
communion with the physical world without. The fact 
that this union is mysterious constitutes no objection, 
for if we deny it, there will be as great a mystery in- 
volved in the idea that the whole mental phenomena is 
the result of properties inherent in matter, and found 
only in the brain, in contradistinction from all other 
matter. 



14 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



SECTION IL 

An argument fonnded on the intelloctnal powers of the mind-* 
Matter cannot think, is not intelligent. 

If matter be intelligent and can think, thought 
must be an essential property of matter, or, it must be 
the result of some peculiar modification of matter; 
neither of which can be maintained. If thought be an 
essential property of matter, every part and particle of 
matter must think. If thought be essential to matter, 
what does not think, is not matter. This is too ab- 
absurd to need a refutation. 

Is thought, then, the result of some 'modification of 
matter ? Certainly not, for thought is now admitted not 
to be an essential property of matter, and no modifica- 
tion or refinement can add to any substance more than 
its essential qualities. Matter under every modi- 
fication is no more than matter, and of course can 
possess only the properties of matter. Matter is 
known by the phenomena it exhibits, and all modi- 
fications and refinements are but modifications and re- 
finements of these phenomena, without increasing or 
diminishing their number, and as it is destitute of 
thought at the commencement, it must remain destitute 
of thought through every change and modification. If 
any thing essential to matter be taken away, it must 
cease to be matter, and if something be added which is 
not essential, that something must have its own essential 
properties as a separate identity or substance, and can 
form no part of matter ] and if that something which 
is supposed to be added, be thought, it is not matter 
that thinks, but something that is added to it. This is 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



15 



just what we hold ; that in the composition of man, a 
rational soul is joined to matter, and that it is the soul 
that thinks, and not the matter. Whatever is essential 
to matter must be matter, and hence, to say that some- 
thing not essential to matter, is added to it, so as to be- 
come a property of matter, is to say that something is 
matter which is not matter. This shows that thought, 
not being a property of matter, cannot become such, 
otherwise matter without thought would be less than 
matter, or matter with thought would be more than 
matter. 

The admission that matter is or can be intelligent, 
must draw after it consequences startling in their na- 
ture, if not fatal to our common religion. The intelli- 
gence of matter has heretofore been contended for, 
only by Infidels ; and is in fact the doctrine of Atheism. 
To meet the argument in favor of the existence of 
God, drawn from the marks of intelligence everywhere 
impressed upon the visible creation, they have asser- 
ted that matter is intelligent. Those who deny the 
immateriality of the human soul, join the Infidel, and 
maintain, that matter may possess a very superior de- 
gree of intelligence. If this be so, who can prove 
that there is any thing but matter in the universe, and 
that what has been deemed the spiritual world is, after 
all, only a world of materiality ? There are the same 
proofs that the human soul is a spirit that there are 
that God is a spirit.. Let us look at this point in the 
light of reason. Atheism admits the existence of mat- 
ter, but denies the existence of spirit, while Christiani- 
ty insists that "God is a Spirit," not matter, but above 



16 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



matter, who created matter, and gave to it its modifi- 
cations. Now our point is^ that every argument which 
is commonly resorted to^ to prove the existence of God, 
vill prove the immateriality of the human soul. To 
show this let us suppose a conversation between an 
Atheist and a Christian who holds to the materiality 
of the human soul. 

Christian. — There must be a God, for as nothing 
can never produce something, the visible creation 
proves that there must be a Creator who made all 
these things." 

Atheist. — " It is as easy for me to conceive that 
nature, or what you call the visible creation, is eternal, 
and that it contains within itself the cause of all the 
phenomena which it exhibits, as it is to suppose there 
is another being which is eternal, whom you call God, 
or a spirit, but whom I never saw and never expect to 
see." 

Christian, — " It is not possible for us to comprehend 
eternal existence, yet reason tells us that something 
must be eternal, and that it is not the visible universe 
that is eternal, as you suppose ] but God who is a 
Spirit, is proved to be the Creator by the signs of in- 
telligence and marks of design every where to be seen 
upon the very face of creation." 

Atheist. — " Matter itself is intelligent under some of 
its modifications, as you admit, and hence all the 
phenomena of the universe may be accounted for with- 
out supposing anything superior to matter. If matter 
may possess one degree of intelligence, it may possess 
a still greater degree, even perfection of knowledge, 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



17 



which you atrribute to your supposed God. The hu- 
man mind presents the highest degree of intelligence 
of which we have any personal knowledge j it presents 
the phenomena of thought, feeling, reason, volition, 
self-determination, self-action, moral sentiments, love, 
hatred, &c. These, in kind, are all that you pretend to 
claim for your supposed God ; you only insist that he 
possesses them in a higher degree, and as you contend 
that all these are possessed by matter, the human mind 
being only matter, the marks of intelligence which the 
visible universe exhibits are no proof of an intelligent 
Spirit, prior and superior to matter, whom you call 
God. Take an illustration: suppose you refer me to 
the solar system with the sun for its centre, and all 
the planets revolving around it with the regularity of 
a well adjusted clock, with comets to note the centu- 
ries and other periods, and tell me there must be a 
Creator who made this machine of the universe, who 
cannot be matter, but who must be spirit. In reply I 
exhibit to you a time-piece, and tell you that it is a 
model of the solar system; it has various and complicated 
wheels, all moving with perfect order, with the moving 
power so encased as to be hid from your view ; one 
pointer tells the lapse of every second ; another points 
Gift the flight of minutes as they depart one by one ; 
a third notes the lapse of hours, and still another 
counts the days as they pass one after another, so that 
by looking upon its face, you can read the second of 
the minute, the minute of the hour, the hour of the 
day, and the day of the month. This curious machine 
which gives the most clear proof of intelligence and 



18 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



design, is not only matter itself, but the designer 
and artificer were matter and nothing but matter, as 
you insist that the human mind is not spirit but mattw. 
If then matter compressed into so small a compass as 
the human brain, can design and execute after such 
a manner, it only requires an organization of this mat- 
ter, on a larger scale, which may exist somewhere as 
the great soul of the universe, to account for all the 
phenomena which you consider proof of the existence 
of a Spirit-God." 

It is seen from the above, that when we, as chris- 
tians, deny that man has a soul which is not matter, 
but which is an immaterial spirit, we break down the 
great dividing line between Christianity and scepticism. 
How a man can prove the existence of God from the 
works of creation, when he attributes to matter, wrapt 
up in the small compass of the human brain, every es- 
sential attribute in kind, which he attributes to his 
Grod, we need more light to understand. It appears to 
lis that we must admit the immateriality of the human 
mind, or be driven by infidelity to adopt its theory of 
a material universe, with a material God, mysteriously 
folded up in its bosom, or equally mysteriously diffus- 
ed among its living orbs. He who contends for the ma- 
teriality of the human soul, may say that he relies upon 
none of these proofs to support his belief in the ex- 
istence of God, but relies wholly upon the Scriptures. 
Well, this issue shall be met in due time, when we 
wiJl attempt to prove that the Scriptures as clearly 
teach that the human soul is a spirit, as they do that 
God is a spirit. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



19 



Having urged the doctrine of the immateriality of mind, 
in an original argument founded upon the fact, that 
matter is not intelligent, we will, at this point, introduce 
another argument to the same effect, which we quote 
from Rev. Richard Watson. We have insisted that to 
admit that matter can he intelligent, is to give up our 
strong proofs of the spirituality of God, and hreak down 
the principal harrier hetween Christianity and Atheism ; 
and it will be seen that Mr. Watson arrives at the same 
conclusion, though by a difierent process of reasoning. 
He is treating of ihe spirituality of God, and remarks 
as follows : — 

" Among the discoveries, made to us by Divine Reve- 
lation, we find not only declarations of the existence 
and unity of God, but of his nature or substance, which 
is plainly affirmed to be spiritual^ ' God is a Spirit.' 
The sense of the Scriptures in this respect cannot be 
mistaken. Innumerable passages and allusions in 
them show, that the terms spirit and body, or matter, 
' are used in the popular sense for substances of a per- 
fectly distinct kind, and which are manifested by dis- 
tinct, and, in many respects, opposite and incommuni- 
cable properties : that the former only can per- 
ceive, think, reason, will, and act • that the latter is 
passive, impereipient, divisible, and corruptible. Under 
these views and in this popular language, God is 
spoken of in holy writ. He is spirit, not body ; mind, 
not matter. He is a pure spirit, unconnected even with 
bodily form or organs ] the invisible God whom no 
man hath seen or can see,'' an immaterial, incorruptible, 
impassable substance, an immense mind or intelligence, 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



self-aeting, self-moving, wholly above the perception 
of bodily sense ; free from the imperfections of matter, 
and all the infirmities of corporeal beings ; far more 
excellent than any finite and created spirits, because 
their Creator, and therefore styled, ' the Father of 
spirits,'' and ' the God of the spirits of all flesh. ^ 

" Such is the express testimony of Scripture as to the 
Divine Nature. That the distinction which it holds 
between matter and spirit should be denied or disre- 
garded by infidel philosophers, is not a matter of sur- 
prise, since it is as easy and as consistent in them to 
materialize God as man. But that the attributes of 
spirit should have been ascribed to matter by those 
who, nevertheless, profess to admit the authority of the 
biblical revelation, as in the case of the modern Uni- 
tarians* and some others, is an instance of singular in- 
consistency. It shows with what daring an unhal- 
lowed philosophy will pursue its speculations, and 
warrants the conclusion, that the Scriptures in such 
cases are not acknowledged upon their own proper 
principles, but only so far as they are supposed to 
agree with, or not to oppose, the philosophic system 
which such men may have adopted. For, hesitate as 
they may ; to deny the distinction between matter and 
spirit, is to deny the spirituality of God, and to con- 
tradict the distinction, which, as to man, is constantly 
kept up in every part of the Bible, the distinction be- 
tween flesh and spirit. * To assert that consciousness, 

* What is here said, is doubtless true of the English Unitarians, 
"but it is true of only a part of the Unitarians in this country. We 
understand some of them, at least, to be firm believers in the 
immateriality and immortality of the soul. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



21 



thought, volition, &c., are the results of organization, 
is to deny also what the Scripture so expressly affirms, 
that the souls of men exist in a disembodied state : and 
that in this disembodied state, not only do they exist, 
hut that they think, and feel, and act without any dimi- 
nution of their energy or capacity. The immateriality 
of the Divine Being may, therefore, he considered as a 
point of great importance, not only as it affects our 
views of his nature and attributes, but because when 
once it is established, that there exists a pure Spirit, 
living, intelligent, and invested with moral properties, 
the question of the immateriality of the human soul 
may be considered as almost settled. Those who deny 
that, must admit that the Deity is material • or, if they 
start at this, they must be convicted of the unphiloso- 
phical and absurd attempt, to invest a substance allowed 
to be of an entirely different nature, (the body of man,) 
with those attributes of intelligence and volition 
which, in the case of the Divine Being, they have al- 
lowed to be the properties of pure unembodied spirit. 
The propositions are totally inconsistent, for they who 
believe that God is wholly an immaterial, and that man 
is wholly a material being, admit that spirit is intelli- 
gent, and that matter is intelligent. They cannot, then, 
be of different essences, and if the premises be followed 
out to their legitimate conclusion, either that which 
thinks in man must be allowed to be spiritual, or a 
material Deity must follow. The whole truth of revela- 
tion, both as to God and his creature man, must be ac- 
knowledged, or the Atheism of Spinosa and Hobbes 
must be admitted. 



22 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



" The decision of Scripture on this point is not to be 
shaken by human reasoning, were it more plausible in 
its attempt to prove that matter is capable of origi- 
nating thought,aijd that mind is a mere result of organi- 
zation. The evidence from reason is, however, highly 
confirmatory of the absolute spirituality of the nature 
of God, and of the unthinking nature of matter. 

" If we allow a First Cause at all, we must allow that 
cause to be intelligent. This has already been proved, 
from the design and contrivance manifested in his 
works. The first argument for the spirituality of 
God is, therefore, drawn from his intelligence, and it 
rests upon this principle, that intelligence is not a pro- 
perty of matter. 

*' With material substance we are largely acquainted; 
and as to the great mass of material bodies, we have the 
means of knowing that they are wholly unintelligent. 
This cannot be denied of every unorganized portion of 
matter. Its essential properties are found to be solidi- 
ty, extension, divisibility, mobility, passiveness, &c. In 
all its forms and mutations, from the granite rock to 
the yielding atmosphere and the rapid lightning, these 
essential properties are discovered ; they take an infi- 
nite variety of accidental modes, but give no indication 
of intelligence, or approach to intelligence. If, then, to 
know be a property of matter, it is clearly not an essen- 
tial property, inasmuch as it is agreed by all, that vast 
masses of this substance exist without this property, 
and it follows, that it must be an accidental one. This, 
therefore, would be the first absurdity into which those 
Would be driven who suppose the Divine Nature to be 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



material, that as intelligence, if allowed to be a pro 
perty of matter, is an accidental and not an essential 
property, on this theory it would be possible to con- 
ceive of the existence of a Deity -without any intelli- 
gence at all. For, take away any property from a 
subject which is not essential to it, and its essence still 
remains ; and if intelligence, which in this view is but 
an accidental attribute of Deity, were annihilated, a 
Deity without perception, thought or knowledge, would 
still remain. So monstrous a conclusion shows, that if 
a God be at all allowed, the absolute spirituality of his 
nature must inevitably follow. For, if we cannot sup- 
pose a Deity without intelligence, then do we admit 
intelligence to be one of his essential attributes ; and, 
as it is easy for every one to observe that this is not an 
essential property of matter, the substance to which it 
is essential cannot be material. 

" If the unthinking nature of unorganized matter fur- 
nishes an argument in favor of the spirituality of 
Deity, the attempt to prove, from the fact of intelli^ 
gence being found in connection with matter in an or- 
ganized form, that intelligence, under certain modifica- 
tions, is a property of matter, may, from its fallacy, be 
also made to yield its evidence in favor of the truth. 

*'The position assumed is, that intelligence is the 
result of material organization. This, at least, is not 
true of every form of organized matter. Of the unin- 
telligent character of vegetables, we have the same evi- 
dence as of the earth on which we tread. The organi- 
zation, therefore, which is assumed to be the cause of 
thought, is that which is found in animals ; and to 



24 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



use the argument of Dr. Priestley^ ' the powers of sen- 
sation, or perception, and thought, as belonging to 
man, not having been found but in conjunction with a 
certain organized system of matter, the conclusion is, 
that they depend upon such a system.' It need not 
now be urged, that constant connection does not imply 
necessary connection ^ and that sufficient reasons may 
be given to prove the connection alleged to be acciden- 
tal and arbitrary. It is sufficient, in the first instance, to 
deny this supposed constant connection between intel- 
lectual properties and systems of animal organization 5 
and thus to take away entirely the foundation of the 
argument. 

" Man is to be considered in two states, that of life^ 
and that of deatk. In one he thinks, and in the other 
he ceases to think ; and yet for some time after death, 
in many cases, the organization of the human frame 
continues as perfect as before. All do not die of or- 
ganic disease. Death by suffi3cation, and other causes, 
is often effected without any visible violence being 
done to the brain, or any other of the most delicate 
organs. This is a vv^ell-established fact ; for the most 
accurate anatomical observation is not able to discover, 
in such cases as we have referred to, the slightest 
organic derangement. The machine has been stopped, 
but the machine itself has suffered no injury ; and from 
the period of death to the time when the matter of the 
body begins to submit to the laws of chemical decom- 
position, its organization is as perfect as during life. If 
an opponent replies, that organic violence must have 
been sustained, though it is indiscernible, he begs the 



IMMARTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



25 



question, and assumes that thought must depend upon 
organization, the very point in dispute. If more modest, 
he says, that the organs may have suffered, he can give 
no proof of it ; appearances are all against him. And 
if he argues from the phenomenon of the connection of 
thought with organization, , grounding himself upon 
what is visible to observation only, the argument is 
completely repulsed by an appeal in like manner to the 
fact^ that the organization of the animal frame can be 
often exhibited, visibly unimpaired by those causes 
which have produced death, and yet incapable of 
thought and intelligence. The conclusion, therefore, is, 
that mere organization cannot be the cause of intelli- 
gence, since it is plain that precisely the same state of 
the organs shall often be found before and after death ; 
and yet, without any violence having been done to 
them, in one moment man shall be actually intelligent, 
and in the next incapable of a thought. So far, then, 
from the connection between mental phenomena, and 
the arrangement of matter in the animal structure, 
being ' constant^'' the ground of the argument of 
Priestley and other materialists, it is often visibly 
broken ) for a perfect organization of the animal re- 
mains after perception has become extinct." 

Little need be added to what has been quoted above 
from Mr. Watson. It will be seen that he maintains 
the same view which we have urged, namely, that to 
admit the materiality of the human soul, or to insist 
that matter may be intelligent, is to disarm ourselves of 
the arguments by which we, as Christians, are wont to 
defend ourselves against infidelity, which denies all 



26 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



Spiritual existence. Certain it is, that the materiality of 
the human mind is the doctrine of all infidels of the Hob- 
bes school. This has been in all ages of the Church, a 
dividing line between Christians and this class of infi- 
dels, and those, professing to be Christians, who deny 
the immateriality of the human soul, as an intelligent 
spirit distinct from the body, in this particular, strike 
hands with the worst opposers Christianity ever had, 
and join with Hobbes, in saying that, " dying is taking 
a leap into the dark." 



SECTION III. 

An argument founded upon the mental phenomena of memory. 

That w^hich remembers must be spirit and not matter. 
It is not possible for us to conceive how memory can be 
a property of, or be exercised by, matter. Memory lies 
at the foundation of all improvement — without it we 
could make no progress. If the ideas we derive 
through the medium of the senses, were to pass away 
-with the objects that produce the sensation^ the whole 
of life would be a mere succession of ideas, or mental 
states, without any accumulation of knowledge j to 
prevent which, we are endowed with the power of 
remembering — so that instead of leaving the past a 
blank, the mind can trace its own history, and view 
from any point of its journey, all the principal events 
that have transpired, the objects that it has viewed, 
the feelings it has experienced, and the thoughts it has 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 27 

entertained, from the twilight dawn of childhood to the 
present moment. Take, for example, such minds as 
Bacon, Locke, and Newton, and how powerful must he 
memory, to treasure a knowledge of almost universal 
nature — surveying the highway of worlds, and gather- 
ing, retaining, and unfolding to the mental vision of 
others, the numberless laws by w^hich their phenomena 
are produced, and their motions directed How vast 
must be the number of ideas which such minds are capa- 
ble of retaining ? It is not possible to see how matter, in 
the shape and compass of the human brain, can gather, 
receive, and retain all these ideas, the originals of 
which, fill earth and heaven-wide space. Assume 
that the human mind is material, and there is no 
known principle of philosophy upon which the phe- 
nomena of memory can be explained. 

1. According to all admitted principles of philosophy, 
matter can be operated upon or impressed, only by 
matter. That which is immaterial cannot impress that 
which is material. Ideas are immaterial, knowledge is 
immaterial, thoughts are immaterial, and how they can 
impress themselves upon matter, so as to be retained 
for fifty years, and be now and then called up and ex- 
hibited as occasion requires, cannot be explained by 
the known laws and properties of matter. Let us sup- 
pose a case : — A person hears his friend narrate the 
scenes and incidents of his travels in a foreign land — 
he describes the general face of the country, its pro- 
ductions, the size, complexion and habits of the people, 
together with all the principal mountains, lakes, and 
rivers. The listener forms ideas in his mind of all 



28 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOtTL, 



these things, so that he is able to take a mental view 
of the whole country, and can even describe it to 
others. Now what is in his mind ? Not the country, 
not its people, mountains, lakes and rivers, they are 
not in the mind Nor can there be even the figure or 
picture of the Variegated scenery impressed upon the 
mind, if it be matter. There has been no contact to 
impress the brain with the outline of the country. He 
never saw it — he never saw a map or picture of it. 
He has only heard certain words, and there is no natu- 
ral adaptation in those words to impress the mind with 
the various forms, colors and motions, which a view of 
the country presents. As matter can be impressed only 
by matter, to produce this result, the words must 
not only be material, but must have figure and color, 
and must be harder than the mind, as the softer al- 
ways receives the impression of the harder, when 
material bodies come in contact. One word must have 
the form of a man, and another the form of a moun- 
tain, and another the form of a landscape, and another 
of a lake, and another of a river, for matter can only 
receive the form of the object by which it is impressed. 
But there is another* difficulty ] motion has no form 
w^hich can be impressed, engraved, or painted upon 
matter. Motion cannot be represented by any image; 
it cannot be represented upon matter, but by the actual 
motion of the matter. But in the outline of the country 
impressed upon the mind, as supposed above, there 
must be a conception of a flowing river, which could 
never be impressed upon the mind, if it were a material 
substance, unless the words themselves have the mo- 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



29 



tian of the river, or give to the mind such motion, nei- 
ther of which can he true upon the supposition that 
mind is matter. The mind does receive ideas from 
various sources and through various mediums, and 
retain them through the whole period of life : and 
though they are not always in the mind, or, at least, are 
not always recognized hy the mind as a present mental 
state, yet the mind can recall them at pleasure. The fact 
that a man having learned any art, or acquired any in- 
formation, can afterwards occupy his mind with other 
matters, not even thinking of the same for years, and 
then recall the whole on a moment's notice, when 
occasion shall require, proves, beyond a doubt, that 
ideas do, in some way, impress themselves upon the 
mind, or, in some sense, remain in the mind ; otherwise 
an idea, or an art learned; having once occupied the 
mind, then ceasing to occupy it as a subject of present 
thought, or a present mental state^ could not be recalled 
with any more facility, than a new thought could be 
conceived, or a new art learned, which every rational 
mind knows is not true. To assert it, would be to 
assert that there is no such thing as memory. Thus 
the phenomena of memory proves, that the mind can- 
not be a material substance. 

2. Should we go back to the old theory of memory, 
found in the exploded philosophy of a departed age, 
we should not be able to reconcile memory with the 
idea of the materiality of the mind. The theory to 
which we allude is, that ideas are images of things 
which are presented to the mind in perception, and 
that these images are recalled in the act of memory. 



30 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOlTt. 



This would render it necessary to have some place to 
store them between the primary act of perception, and 
the subsequent act of memory. This must convert the 
mind, yea, the brain^ if the brain be the mind, into a 
vast lumber-room, where are stored images of more 
things than Noah had creatures in the ark. These 
must be packed away in boxes, laid away upon 
shelves, or hung up as maps upon a wall; and from 
among the millions, one after another must come for- 
ward from its concealment, and then retire into its 
hiding place, as one thing after another is recalled by 
memory. It appears to us, that this philosophy must 
be adopted by those who hold that the mind is matter, 
that the brain is the mind ] for it is not possible to con- 
ceive how forms of material things, and ideas of things 
in general, can be impressed upon the brain, or a»y 
material substance, though it be called mind, so as to 
be retained and viewed at pleasure. But if this philo- 
sophy be once adopted by the materialist, another diffi- 
culty will arise which must utterly confound his 
whole theory. It is this : Images sketched in any 
manner upon a material substance, must occupy space ; 
and, as we cannot conceive that the brain is divided 
into as many apartments as there are ideas, each 
occupying a distant place by itself, they must be piled 
one upon the other, thousands upon thousands, on 
precisely the same portion of matter, if the mind be 
matter. This is absolutely impossible, according to all 
the known laws of matter ] matter must fii] its own 
space, can fill no more than its space, and nothing: else 
can occupy the same space at the same time, "which 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUI., 



31 



any given portion of matter does fill. If, then, the 
mind be matter, you can only cover its surface with 
the impressions or images of ideas ; and, of course, the 
number of ideas which the mind is capable of receiving 
and retaining, must be limited according to the propor- 
tion of space which each occupies, compared with the 
dimensions of the whole mind. This, every reflecting 
mind knows cannot be true ) for no person ever knew 
so much that he could learn no more — no person ever 
found his mind so full, or so entirely occupied, with 
ideas, that there was no room for more. Keeping in 
view the fact, that every portion of matter presents a 
surface of limited and definite extent, we remark that, 
no more ideas can he impressed upon the mind, if it be 
matter, than will cover its surface ; for a number of 
impressions, or images, cannot occupy the same space 
upon the surface of any material body, without defac- 
ing each other. If the mind be matter^ then each idea 
must occupy a definite portion of its surface, which 
must sustain a proportion to the whole mind, or else 
each idea must occupy the whole mind. If each idea 
occupies a part of the mind, which sustains a propor- 
tion to the whole, then it follows that the mind can re- 
ceive and retain but a definite number of ideas, accord- 
ing to the size of each compared with the size of the 
whole mind. This, no one will pretend. But on the 
other hand, if each idea occupies the whole mind, there 
must be as many impressions, one upon the other, as 
the mind receives and retains ideas, a thing absolutely 
impossible, upon the surface of matter. ' This has great 
force in connection with the phenomenon of memory, 



32 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



for, if the mind be matter, all the ideas of a whole life 
must be impressed upon it, one upon the other, so as 
to be called up as occasions require, which is impossi- 
ble • for, in makins: a second impression upon matter, 
you necessarily obliterate the first. 

3. In materializing the mind, and then storing it 
with the impressions, or images of things, or ideas, of 
half a century's accumulation, another difficulty is in- 
volved. Keeping in view the fact that, every portion 
of matter possesses form and fills Space, these images, 
or ideas, adhering to the mind in any foim or manner, 
must also, each for itself, occupy a portion of the phy- 
sical dimensions of the mind, as shown above : and if 
these thoughts, ideas, or images of things, occupy space, 
their size, compared with each other, must necessarily 
be proportioned to the relative sizes of the things they 
represent. Assuming this, it follows that the idea of 
a mountain must, necessarily, occupy more space in 
the mind than a pebble, and the thought of an elephant 
must fill more space in the mind than the thought of 
an ant. This, our own consciousness contradicts, and, 
of course, it cannot be true, and, per consequence, the 
mind cannot be material. 

We believe these difficulties cannot be obviated, 
only by a process of reasoning, applicable alone to 
spirit and not to matter ; and this will be to abandon 
the whole ground of the mind's materiality, for it will 
not do to assume that the mind, is matter, and then 
reason as though it were spirit. Those who assert 
that the mind is matter, are bound to admit that it 
possesses all the known and essential properties of 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



33 



matter, and that it is governed by all the essential laws 
known to govern matter 5 and, admitting these, the 
above reasoning stands in full force against the materi- 
ality of the human mind. But only admit the common 
theory, that the mind is spirit and not matter, and the 
above reasoning becomes totally inapplicable, and all 
the difficulties disappear. Suppose that the mind is 
immaterial, a spirit, constituting no part of the body ; 
that it is that which thinks and remembers, being a 
living soul, without figure, form, color, impenetrability, 
extension — divisibility, gravitation, attraction or repul- 
sion, and not one of the arguments, urged above, 
against the materiality of the mind can be brought to 
bear on the subject. 



SECTION IV 

The immateriality of mind proved from its consciousness of 
identity and responsibility. 

I. The soul, the rational man, cannot be the body, 
nor any part of it, as is proved from the identity which 
the mind is conscious of maintaining from the dawn of 
existence to life's final close. There is no room for 
dispute about the fact of this consciousness * it is the 
same in all, as all will admit. The man of three- 
score and ten years, can look back to the hour of 
childhood, and trace his history through every inter- 
vening period; and is conscious that he has preserved 
his identity through the whole, and is now the same 
person that he was at the commencement of life's 



34 



IMMORTALITY OT THE SOUL. 



journey. Consciousness, is that notice which the 
mind takes of its own operations and modes of exist- 
ence. Now, allow for a moment, that the mind is ma- 
terial, that the body, or some part of it, is the mind, 
and see what can be made out of this consciousness of 
identity. In such case, it is matter, the body, or some 
part of it, that is conscious of its identity, which must 
involve the greatest absurdities. 

1. Substitute the body, or that part of it which may 
be supposed to constitute the mind, for the term mind, 
and the absurdity will be seen at once. Conscious- 
ness is that notice which the body takes of its own 
operations and modes of existence. This, every one 
knows IS not the true — the body is not conscious. 
Suppose the brain to be the mind, and it will not be 
true. We cannot say, consciousness is that notice 
which the brain takes of its own operations and modes 
of existence. The brain is not the subject of this con- 
sciousness of identity; every man is conscious that it 
was the same mind that thought, loved, hated, rejoiced, 
and sorrowed in time past, — that thinks, loves, hates, 
rejoices and sorrows now ; but no man is or can be 
conscious that he has the same brains now that he had 
in time past. It is then clear, that the mind is some- 
thing distinct from the brain, and every other part of 
the body, as no part of the body is conscious, or the 
subject of consciousness. We can say that conscious- 
ness is that notice which the mind takes of its own 
operations, and every man's internal convictions tell 
him it is so ; but if we say that consciousness is that 
notice which the brain takes of its own operations, no 



IMMORTALITY Or THE SOUii. 



S5 



man feels any internal conviction of the truth of what 
we affirm. 

2. To make the brain, or any other part of the body, 
both the actor and the subject of this conscious iden- 
tity, is to ifteke consciousness utter a falsehood. It is 
not true that the body preserves its identity;, it is the 
perpetual subject of waste and renovation, keeping up 
a perpetual change of the particles of matter that com- 
pose every part of the body, even the brain itself. — 
According to the admitted principles of physiology, a 
person at the age of seventy, must have changed every 
particle of matter composing his body, some ten times. 
The system is calculated for reception and discharge, 
and this is the operation perpetually going on through 
life. - This may be seen by the unlettered reader who 
has never studied physiology. He knows that he must 
take food every day to supply the perpetual waste of 
his system, — that what he eats forms blood, and flesh, 
and bones. This could not be necessary, were there 
not a perpetual waste. This is further proved from 
the fact that the moment we cease to receive a sufficient 
degree of nutriment, the body begins to waste and be- 
come thinner 5 as the saying is, it gvov^s poor. A per- 
son may be nearly starved to death, or emaciated with 
sickness, until reduced to one quarter the usual weight, 
and then in a few weeks recover, and be as full and 
heavy as before. Does the body consist of the same 
particles of matter now that it did before 1 Certainly 
not • the waste has been supplied with new matter, 
and yet the person is conscious of having preserved 
his identity through all these changes ; he is certaia 



36 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL* 



that he that thinks and feels now, is he that thought 
and felt before these changes took place. This proves 
that the conscious mind, which preserves its identity 
amid all the changes of the body, is not the body ; is a 
distinct substance from the body, remaining unchanged. 

In reply to the above, it may be said that identity 
does not depend upon the presence of the same floating 
particles of matter, but upon the sameness of the organi- 
zation, and that in this respect there is no change; that 
we end life with the same organization — the same 
animal machine with which we commence it. Admit 
this for the sake of the argument, and nothing is gain- 
ed to the cause of the materialist. 

1. The identity of the organization is preserved only 
as the identity of a watch is preserved, which, when 
seventy years old, has had every wheel and part sup- 
plied with new ones ten times. All the wheels have 
been used up and supplied ten times, but it is the same 
watch. Who does not see that this is trifling with 
our own consciousness ; the mind is not conscious of 
any such identity as is here described, as will be seen 
from what follows. 

. 2. The body is not the subject of conscious identity ; 
this every rational person must know for himself, if he 
will reflect upon his own mental states. No man is or 
can be conscious that he has the same hands, feet or 
head, that he had ten years ago. He knows that they 
are the same from the impossibility of having changed 
them ; but this is not consciousness. Could his hands, 
feet or head be exchanged while asleep for others look- 
ing just like them, consciousness would not detect the 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



37 



change; there would he the same consciousness of 
identity or continued self as hefore. This shows that 
it is not the identity of the body of which we are con- 
scious. A man is conscious that he is the same think- 
ing, morally responsible being now, that he was ten 
years ago ; but he is not and cannot be conscious that 
he has even the same brains now that he had ten years 
ago. This proves that the conscious mind is something 
distinct from the body. 

II. Nearly allied to this consciousness of identity, 
is consciousness of responsibility ; in view of which 
conscience approves or condemns us for what we have 
done. It is the office of conscience to approve when 
we do right, and to condemn when we do wrong, — if 
we can then determine upon what our conscious guilt 
falls, when cohscience condemns us, we shall find the 
morally responsible man, whether it be the body, or 
the soul, as distinct from the body. Suppose a man to 
have committed murder twenty years ago, and no one 
will doubt that he has carried in his bosom, the canker 
worm of a guilty conscience ; his consciousness tells 
him that it was he that committed the murder, and not 
another, while his conscience tells him that he is guilty 
in view of the offence. What then is guilty On what 
does the condemnation rest ? Does the murderer feel 
that it is his feet that are in fault, that his hands are to 
blame, that his brains are guilty Surely not ; con- 
science never told a man that his brains were guilty in 
view of his wrong acts, and this simple fact proves that 
the brains do not constitue the intellectual and moral 
man; if they did, our conscience would condemn our 

2 



38 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



brains when we do wrong. Let the conscience smitten 
sinner philosophize upon the operations of his own mind, 
and he will come to a right conclusion on this subject. 



SECTION V. 

The immateriality of mind proved from the nature of its desires. 

The spirituality of the human soul may he inferred 
from the nature of its desires ; from its thirst for hap- 
piness, which can he slaked only by drinking at the 
fountain of spiritual bliss. That all men desire happiness 
will not be denied ; and that the greater portion seek 
it where it is not to be found, must also be admitted. 
The reason is, they seek it in the gratification of their 
animal propensities, and in the enjoyment of material ob- 
jects, which can never feed and satisfy a spirit-soul. If 
the mind was material, right reason must teach us, that 
matter could answer all the demands of its nature, and sat- 
isfy its most capacious desires. Nothing can be more 
reasonable, than, that all beings should find the centre of 
their happiness, in the perfection and fulness of the ele- 
ments of their own natures. If man were only matter, if 
his soul were only matter compounded of the elements of 
the material world, in the material world would exist 
bis centre of attraction, and the fountain of his highest 
enjoyment. That matter should seek an alliance with 
the spiritual world, and seek for fountains of spiritual 
bliss, and pant for spiritual joys, is as absurd and un- 
philosophical, as to suppose it to he governed by other 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUI*. 



39 



than its own essential laws, and, to act in violation of 
the essential properties of its own nature. The fact 
that the world of matter, never did, and never can sat- 
isfy the desires of the human soul, is one of the clear- 
est proofs that the soul is not itself matter. The world 
in any and all its forms, cannot satisfy the desires of 
one human soul; give it all the elements of earth, sea 
and air, moulded into every possible form, and it will 
grasp the whole and thirst and famish still, and pant 
for higher bliss ] there is still an achina; void which 
God and love can fill. The reason of this is, the soul 
is not matter but spirit ; were it matter, in matter would 
it find the element of its own nature, and the fulness of 
its own happiness ; but it is a spirit, and in this respect 
like God. It originally came from God, and hence can 
be happy in God alone, as God dwells in us and we in 
God. But does God dwell in matter and matter in 
God % Can matter have fellowship with the Father 
and the Son T Can matter have communion with the 
Eternal Spirit % Can matter drink joys from the foun- 
tains of the Godhead ? 

The desire of knowledge, taken in connection with 
the capacity of the mind to improve, with the compar- 
ative progress of the body and mind, furnishes another 
argument in proof of its immateriality or spiritual na- 
ture. That the soul commences its career without 
knowledge is admitted ; it has all to learn, but its ca- 
pacity to learn furnishes the basis of the argument. 
The human mind is endowed with reason, which ena- 
bles it to discover resemblances and differences, compare, 
judge, and deduce conclusions. This is the foundation 



40 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



of improvement^ and distinguishes the human soul from 
the most intelligent of brutes, as well as from the ma- 
terial body in which it dwells. The mind in its present 
state is dependent upon the bodily organs for primary 
ideas; that is^ the knowledge derived from seeing 
is received through the medium of the eyes, and the 
knowledge derived from hearing is received through 
the medium of the ears, &c. * yet such is the capacity 
of the mind, and such the manner of its improvement, 
as to furnish clear evidence that it is not one with the 
body, but in its nature, a distinct and spiritual element. 

1. Its improvement is a distinct matter from the im- 
provement of the body. The health of the body and 
mind frequently mutually effect each other, yet they are 
clearly distinct in their elemental nature. The body 
may grow and flourish in all the perfection of health, 
and the mind make little or no progress. Again, the 
body may be of exceedingly frail structure; pale and 
wan, and yet a giant mind may develope itself from 
within. Some of the greatest genius's the world has 
ever produced, h^ve had but just body enough to hold 
the soul. These facts certainly indicate that the soul 
and the body are not one and the same thing. 

2. The -body comes to maturity and begins to de- 
cline, at an age Vv-hen the mind has but just commenced 
its career of improvement. The mind often makes its 
greatest advancement, after the body has commenced its 
downward course in the scale of being. The body 
usually possesses its greatest power and activity at 
twenty-^lve; at thirty it is in its full strength, but its 
activity begins to fail: at forty the whole physical 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



41 



system enters upon the downward course of life, and 
from sixty to seventy, it is generally superannuated. 
But it is otherwise with the mind ; at twenty -five it 
has usually but begun to learn, its judgment is very far 
from being mature ; from thirty to forty it begins to 
develope its powers; at fifty, sixty, and even seventy, 
the body being comparatively worn out, the mind is in 
its full strength and glory. This clearly proves, that 
the mind is not the body, that the growth of the one is 
not the growth of the other, and that the decay of the 
one is not the decay of the other. 

3. The phenomenon of what is called dotage, or 
second childhood, which some may regard as over- 
throwing the above view, when examined, will be found 
actually to support it. The apparent decay of the 
3nind in cases of second childhood, by their want of 
uniformity, proves that the body and the soul are not 
one and the same thing, and that the decay of the one 
is not necessarily the decay of the other. If the mind 
were material — if it were not distinguished in the ele- 
ments of its nature from the material body, then would 
the intellect necessarily and uniformiJy grow with the 
growth, and decay with the decay of the body. This 
is not the case ; mental imbecility is often discovered 
in those whose bodies are less impaired, and whose 
general health and vigor of body is far superior to 
f)thers whose minds appear in their full strength. This 
could not be the case, if the mind did actually decay 
with the decay of the body. 

4. The doctrine of Phrenology, which makes the 
fiize of the brain the measure of mental power, and the 



42 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



comparative size of its parts an index to the prevailing 
mental propensities, if admitted, would not prove the 
mind to be matter, or the brain to be the mind. The 
advocates of Phrenology will not make this the issue, 
and base their science .on the doctrine of materialism, 
to stand or fall with it. All that can be claimed for 
Phrenology, is, that the brain is the material organ 
through which the mind acts and developes itself in its 
incarnate state, and that it will^ of course, develope a 
power proportioned to the size or strength of the brain 3 
and; that the prevailing direction of the mind will be 
indicated by the comparative size of the phrenological 
divisions of the brain. Admitting all this to be true, 
it does not, in itself, tend to materialism, since it sup- 
poses the brain to be only the organ of the mind, and 
not the mind itself. 

5. The mind often developes itself in its greatest 
power and glory, just at the moment of death, shining 
out from an emaciated body, already wan and cold. 
These cases, of very frequent occurrence, clearly indi- 
cate that the mind is not the body : that it does not 
waste with il, and does not die with it. It is true that 
in some cases the mind appears to decay with the de- 
caying body, but to prove that it is the body or any 
part of it, this would have to be always so without ex- 
ception, which is not the case. To make the argument 
plain, we say that a single instance in which the mind 
kindles up at the moment of death, and blazes out with 
unwonted intellectual fires, while the body is wan, cold 
and helpless, cannot be reconciled with the idea that 
the mind is any part of the material body, and that it 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



43 



wastes and dies with it. On the other hand, those 
cases in which the mind appears to waste with the 
body and go out hke the sun, passing gradually behind 
a cloud, deeper and darker, until its last ray is lost, can 
be explained in perfect harmony with the theory of 
the immateriality of the mind, and even its immortality. 
Does the mind fail, as in second childhood — or does it 
grow gradually dim as the body wastes under the in- 
fluence of disease ? The explanation is this : the bodily 
organs through w^hich the mind communicates with the 
material world, in these particular cases, are impaired 
by age or disease. In many cases of death from sick- 
ness, the mind appears to waste away, or gradually 
sink into a state of sleep, merely because the will does 
not determine it in a direction to develope itself to the 
world without. But that the mind is there, distinct 
from the wasting, dying body, is clear from the many 
cases already referred to, in which the mind, being 
roused by the prospect of heaven, or seized with the 
terror of impending perdition, flashes with the flres of 
immortality, and sheds a living glare as it quits its house 
of clay and enters upon the destinies of the spirit world 
This has often been witnessed in the dying moments 
of both the Christian and the sinner. There are but 
few Christian pastors who have been long devoted to 
their work, that have not in their visits among the 
sick and dying, more than once stood by the bed-side 
of those whose last moments left upon their minds a 
vivid impression of the undying nature of the human 
soul. 



44 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



SECTION VL 

The Immateriality of Mind, concluded— The Bible Argument, in 
which it is shown that the Sacred Writers took it for granted, 
that the common doctrine was understood and believed. 

We now come to inquire, what is the Bible doctrine 
concerning the human mind ? Does the Bible teach 
that the mind is material or immaterial ? that it is the 
body, or some part of the body, or that the mind is a 
spirit or a soul which forms no part of the body 1^ We 
say that the Bible teaches, that man is composed of a 
body and a soul; that the body is of the earth and ma- 
terial, and that the soul is an immaterial spirit. We 
will adduce a few proof texts. 

The Bible usually assumes the doctrine of the dis- 
tinction between soul and body, and speaks in a man- 
ner which takes it for granted that this distinction is 
understood and believed. Gen. xxxv. 18. ^'And it 
came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she 
died,) that she called his name Ben-oni." This text 
clearly takes it for granted, that man is composed of a 
body and a soul, and that what is called death, or dy- 
ing, is their separation, or the departure of the soul. 
Dr. Clarke renders the Hebrew of this text, " in the 
going away of her soul." If man has no immaterial 
soul, if materialism be true, what went away, or what 
departed 1 Her body did not depart. Her brains did 
not depart. There was nothing which departed, which 
could consistently be called "her soul,"' only upon the 
supposition that there is in man an immaterial spirit, 
which leaves the body at death. The language is just 
such as a believer in the common doctrine of the soul 



I 

I 

IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 45 

would be likely to use, and just such, as none but such 
a believer would employ. Put the words into the 
mouth of one who holds the doctrine for which we 
contend, and they are clear and forcible ; but put them 
into the mouth of a materialist, and they either express 
a falsehood, or mean nothing. It is then pretty clear, 
that whoever wrote the book of Genesis, was not a 
materialist. 

Numbers xvi. 22. " And they fell upon their faces, 
and said, 0 God, the God of the spirits of all flesh." 
This text clearly takes for granted, that man is a 
compound of flesh and spirit. *' All flesh," clearly 
means all mankind, or all human flesh, and the spirits 
of all flesh," clearly implies that to each body of flesh 
there is a spirit. It must appear clear, that no rational 
person would ever employ such language, who did not 
believe in the common doctrine of the human soul. It is 
then clear that these praying Jews, together with their 
inspired historian, were not materialists. They believed 
that in man is united a body and a spirit, and that God 
is especially the God of the spirit. No other meaning 
can be given to the word spirits, in this text, vvhich 
will even weaken the argument. The word sometimes 
signifies wind or breath, but give it either of these sig- 
nifications here, and you will destroy a clear sense, 
and turn their solemn prayer into mockery. How 
would it sound to pray, 0 God, the God of the winds 
of all flesh ;" or, " the God of the breaths of all flesh V 
It would spoil both the beauty and the sense, and turn 
that which is truly sublime, into that which would ap- 
proach very nearly to the ridiculous. 



46 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



Num. xxvii. 15, 16. And Moses spake unto the 
Lord, saying, Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all 
flesh, set a man over the congregation." What has 
been remarked upon the preceding text is equally true 
of this, and need not be repeated. Moses must have 
believed in the common doctrine of man's compound 
nature consisting of flesh and spirit. 

Job xiv. 22. " But his flesh upon him shall have 
pain, and his soul within him shall mourn." * This 
text, like the former, does not assert the fact that man 
is composed of a body and soul, but like them, clearly 
takes it for granted, that this is a doctrine believed and 
understood. It clearly distinguishes between the flesh 
and soul, and affirms that his soul shall mourn withiu 
him. Upon the supposition of the materialist, what 
does Job mean by the soul 1 It is not the flesh, for he 
names that as something diflerent from the soul ; his 
flesh is on him, and his soul is in him. Does he mean 
that his brains shall mourn within him 1 Does he 
mean that his wind or breath shall mourn within him ? 
Certainly none of these can be his meaning. Surely 
Job talked as though he believed the human mind to 
be something different from the body. 

Chap. xxxi. 30. " Neither have I suffered my mouth 
to sin, by wishing a curse to his soul." 

Job is here speaking of his enemy, and by the ex- 
pression, " his soul," he clearly distinguished between 
his soul and body. The body, the visible, tangible 
man, he represented as the person, and the soul as be- 
longing to it. The language clearly implies a distinc- 
tion between body and soul. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUI^ 



47 



Chap, xxxii. 8. *' But there is a spirit in man, and 
the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them under- 
standing.'' This text appears to be an allusion to God's 
breathing into man the breath of life, after he had 
formed him of the dust of the ground, by which he 
"became a living soul." The only use we make of it 
now, is to prove that the mind is spirit and not matter. 
**There is a spirit in man.'^ Man here denotes the 
visible, tangible frame, the body; in this there is a 
spirit. This spirit is doubtless the intelligent part, as 
it is said, *'the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them 
understanding." The spirit is not only what God in- 
fused at first, but upon this same spirit God operates^ 
when, by inspiration, he giveth him understanding. 

Prov. xix. 2. "That the soul be without know- 
ledge is not good." This text clearly implies the 
existence of an intelligent soul, distinct from the body. 
What does the inspired v riter mean by soul, in this 
text. The word soul is sometimes used to denote man 
as a whole, or personal being, but the definite article 
Hhe,* attached to it will not allow it to have this meaning. 
No particular person is spoken of, and hence, soul can- 
not mean man as an entire personal being. We cannot 
say, " that the man be without knowledge is not good," 
when no particular man is intended. Soul cannot 
here mean wind or breath. There is no sense in saying, 
"That the wind or breath be without knowledge is 
not good." It will not better it to substitue brains, for 
soul. Nothing then can be meant by soul, unless it 
be the rational spirit in man, according to the common 
doctrine. 



48 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL* 



Eccle. xii. 7. " Then shall the dust return unto the 
earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God 
"who gave it. ^ This is an important text, but we will 
not enlarge upon it in this place, as we shall have 
occasion to quote it again in proof of another point. 
We quote it here to prove the immateriality of the sou] 
in contradistinction from the body. It clearly distin- 
guishes between the material and immaterial parts of 
man ; it separates them at death, and assigns the ma- 
terial part to the earth, and the immaterial part back 
to God, whence it came. 

Ezek. xviii. 4. "Behold, all souls are mine; as 
the sou] of the father, so also the soul of the son ia 
mine." In this text it is certainly taken for granted 
that man has a soul, which forms no part of his body. 
What else can soul mean but the spirit that is in man, 
in contradistinction from his body It cannot mean 
the breath, or wind, in this text, as it sometimes does. 
God does not mean to say that, the air which the father 
breathes, and which the son breathes, is alike his. It 
cannot mean the person or whole man. To mean that, 
it should read, all souls are mine ; as the father is 
mine so also the son is mine." The expressions soul 
of the father," and " soul of the son," proves that the 
whole man is not meant. The preposition " of " is 
equivalent to the possessive case, and whether we say 
" soul of the father," or, father's soul, the sense is the 
same. The language is then in perfect accordance 
with the common belief that man is composed of a 
body and a soul, but deny this doctrine and the sense 
of the text is destroyed. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



49 



Zech. xil. 1. ^'The Lord, which stretcheth forth the 
heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and 
formeth the spirit of man within him." This text is 
clearly founded upon the belief that, man consists of a 
body with a spirit in it, nor can it be made to express 
good sense, without admitting this doctrine, as a truth 
understood and believed at the time it was uttered. 
The spirit of man is the subject of remark, and this 
spirit, God is represented as forming within him. The 
mind, or immaterial soul, according to the common be- 
lief, is the only spirit that God can be supposed to form 
within man. 

Rom. viii. 16. The Spirit itself beareth witness 
with our spirit, that we are the children of God." 
Here are two spirits named. The first, called " the 
Spirit," is, no doubt, the Holy Ghost • the second, 
called " our spirit," is the intelligent mind or soul of 
man. This proves the human mind to be an inmate- 
rial spirit, for the word spirit can mean nothing else in 
this text. What is it with which the Holy Spirit bears 
witness T It is not our body, or any part of it ; it is 
not even our brains. It is not wind or our breath. It 
is not our life. Indeed there is nothing which can be 
understood by " our spirit," in this text, but the imma- 
terial, intelligent nature of man, according to the com- 
mon belief of christians. 

I. Cor. ii. 11. "For what man knoweth the things 
of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him % 
even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the 
Spirit of God." The design of this text is to affirm 
that, as the spirit of man searches the things of a man, 



50 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL 



SO the Spirit of God searches the things of God, and it 
proves as clearly that the inteilig;ent principle in man is 
spirit, as it does that what is called the Spirit of God, 
is spirit, that is, an immaterial essence. 

Chap. vi. 20. ^' For ye are bought with a price : 
therefore glorify God in your body, and your spirit, 
which are God's." This text, as clearly as it possibly 
could, takes it for granted that man is composed of a 
body and a spirit, and that the body is not the spirit, 
and that the spirit is not the body, and that they both 
constitute the man. It is not possible to conceive that 
any well informed man, not believing in the common 
doctrine of body and soul, would employ such lan- 
guage. Paul, then, clearly believed the common doc- 
trine. It was undoubtedly this belief that suggested 
the mode of expression adopted in the text, 

II. Cor. iv. 16. " But though our outward man 
perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." 
In this text there is a clear distinction made between 
the body and soul. The body is called the outward 
man ; the soul is called the inward man. 

Chap. vii. 1. " Let us cleanse ourselves from all 
filthiness of the flesh and spirit." Here again the dis- 
tinction is made between the material and spiritual part 
of man, and the apostle takes it for granted that this 
distinction is understood. 

James ii. 26. " For as the body without the spirit is 
dead, so faith without works is dead also." This text is 
sufficient of itself to settle the question, if there was 
nut another to be quoted. The apostle not only as- 
sumes, that man is composed of a body and a spirit, 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL , 



51 



but supposes the fact to be plainer and better under- 
stood than the connection between faith and works. 
He is laboring to prove that faith is not vital and sav- 
ing unless it produces good works, and to make it 
plainer he introduces as an illustration, the better un- 
derstood fact of the union of a spirit and body in man, 
and that the body is dead without the spirit. The re- 
mark is founded upon the common belief that the body 
lives only while the soul reuains in it, and that death 
is a separation between them. The above texts^ gath- 
ered from the whole face of the Bible, as they have 
been^ are sufficient to establish the truth of the exist- 
ence of the human mind as an intelligent, immaterial 
spirit, distinct from matter. 

It was remarked in a preceding section, that the 
Scriptures furnish the same evidence of the spiritual 
nature of the human soul, that they do that God is a 
spirit. This point we promised to make plain in its 
proper place, and will now attempt to redeem the 
pledge. 

The same words which are applied to man, to de- 
scribe his spiritual nature, are applied to God. It is 
admitted that these words are indefinite in the original 
Hebrew and Greek, insomuch that no argument, can 
be based upon any supposed necessary meaning, but 
must depend for its force upon the connection and other 
circumstances ; and any criticism which will invali- 
date the evidence in proof that the human soul is 
spirit and not matter, will equally weaken the argu- 
ment in support of the idea that God is a spirit. A 
few illustrations will make this plain. We will place 



52 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



a few texts in juxtapositioi 
may rest upon both classes 
Spoken of God* 

Isa. i. 14. " Your new 
moons and your appointed 
feasts my soul hateth." 

In this text God repre- 
sents his own soul as be- 
ing the subject of hatred. 

If the word soul in this 
text means a spirit, it must 
mean a spirit in the oppo- 
site column, for as it is here 
the subject of hatred, it is 
there the subject of love. 

Isa. xlii. 1. '^Behold 
mine elect in whom my 
SOUL delighteth.'- 

In this text the same 
term is used to denote the 
mind of God^ that is used 
to denote the mind of man 
in the opposite column, 
and both are represented 
as the subjects of a like 
affection. 

Job. xxiii. 13. "What 
nis SOUL desireth, even 
that he doeth." 

Jer. V. 9. "Shall I not 



L that the eye of the reader 
at the same moment. 
Spoken of Man, 

Deut.xi. 13. "Love the 
Lord your God with all 
your SOUL." 

In this text God repre- 
sents the soul of man as 
being the subject of love. 

If the word soul in this 
text does not mean a spirit, 
it cannot mean a spirit in 
the opposite column, for 
as it here is the subject of 
love, it is there the subject 
of hatred. 

Isa. Iv. 2. " Let your 
SOUL delight itself in fat- 
ness." 

In this text the same 
word is used to denote the 
mind of man, that denotes 
the mind of God in the op- 
posite column, and both 
are represented as the sub- 
jects of a like affection. 

Prov. xxi. 10. "The 
SOUL of the wicked desir- 
eth evii.^' 

Lev.xxvi. 15. "If your 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



5a 



visit for these things ? saith soul abhor my judgments, 
the Lord : and shall not so that ye will not do all 
my SOUL he avenged on my commandments, I also 
such a nation as this V will do this unto you," 

Jer. vi, 8. "Be thou Isa. Iv. 3. " Come unto 
instructed, 0 Jerusalem, me, and hear, and your 
lest my soul depart from soul shall live." 
thee." 

In the above texts, the word soul, in the left hand 
column, is applied to God, to denote his Spirit, or the 
Holy Ghost ; and in the right hand column the same 
word is used to denote the mind, or intellectual and 
moral nature of man. If then the one is not spirit, 
there is no proof that the other is. Any criticism upon 
the word, where it is applied to man in the right hand 
column, by which it may be rendered life, disposition, 
temper of mind, breath, wind or air, must be equally 
applicable to the word in the left hand column, where 
it is applied to God ; as effectually overturning the 
proof that God is a spirit, as thai the soul of man is a 
spirit. 

We will now consider the word spirit, which is more 
clearly employed to denote the nature or essence of God, 
and will show that its use proves that man has a spirit- 
ual nature, as clearly as it does that God is a spirit. 
Applied to God. Applied to Man. 

Gen. i. 2. The spirit Prov. xx. 27. " The 
of God moved upon the spirit of a man is the can- 
face of the waters." die of the Lord, searching 

all the inward parts of the 
belly." 



54 



IMMORTALITY GY THE SOITL. 



Job. xxvi. 13. " By his 
SPIRIT he hath garnished 
the heavens ; his hand 
hath formed the crooked 
serpent." 

Psalms cxxxix. 7 — 10. 
Whither shall I go from 
thy spirit'? or whither 
shall 1 flee from thy pres- 
ence ? If I ascend up into 
heaven thou art there ] if 
I make my bed in hell, be- 
hold, thou art there. If I 
take the wings of the 
morning, and dwell in the 
uttermost parts of the sea, 
even there shall thy hand 
lead me, and thy right hand 
shall hold me." 

John iv. 24. " God is a 



Job xxxii.S^'But there 
is a spirit in man, and the 
inspiration of the Almigh- 
ty giveth them understand- 
ing, 

Eccl. iii. 21, and xii. 7. 
"Who knoweth the spirit 
of a man that goeth up- 
ward ? 

Then shall tlie dust re- 
turn to the earth as it 
was ; and the spirit shall 
return unto God who gave 
it." 

Acts vii. 59. " Lord Je- 
sus receive my spirit." 



SPIRIT. 



Heb.xii. 23. "The spir- 
its of just men made per- 
fect." 

I. Cor. ii. 11. "For 
what man knoweth the 
things of a man, save the 
spirit of man which is in 
him ?" 

We have quoted above the principal texts which 
affirm that God is a spirit, and directly opposite to 
them in the right hand column, are other texts which 
just as clearly prove that the intellectual part of man 



I. Cor. ii. 11. " Even 
so the things of God know- 
eth no man, but the spirit 
of God." 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



55 



is a spirit. Any ciiticism which will make the one 
class of texts harmonize with the materiality of the 
human mind or soul, will no less make the other class 
harmonize with the materiality of God. 

But the connection in which the sacred writers use 
the word spirit, applying it to God and to man in the 
same sentence, proves that by it they mean the same 
thing in the one case as in the other. We will give 
a few examples. 

John iv. 24. God is a spirit ; and they that wor- 
ship him must worship in spirit and in truth." Here 
the word spirit is applied to God and man, in a manner 
which proves beyond a doubt, that the word means the 
same thing in both instances. If any text in the Bible 
proves that God is a spirit, this is the very text, and if 
this text proves that God is a spirit and not matter, it 
must follow that man has a spiritual nature which is 
not matter. The text affirms that God is a spirit, and 
then announces as a consequence, that is, because God 
is a spirit, " they that worship him must worship in 
spirit," using the same term, spirit, to denote the spirit 
in which man must worship, that is used to express 
the divine essence which is to be worshiped. God is a 
spirit, but man is matter and spirit, having a body and 
soul. The material body may be made to perform cer- 
tain acts, and assume certain attitudes of worship, in 
which the mind, the spirit, is not engaged ; this is not 
acceptable. As God is a spirit, no worship can be 
acceptable to him, which is not performed by the 
spirit, the soul as well as the body. Indeed, as God 
is a spirit, we may regard the text as affirming that it 



56 



IMMORTALITY OF THE gOTTL. 



requires a being of like nature to worship him ; that he 
can be worshipped by spirits only. If the mind of 
man is not spirit, but matter, how he can worship God 
in spirit, or with spirit, as the Greek participle signifies, 
is not possible for ordinary minds to comprehend. 
Adopt the common theory of the spiritual nature of the 
human soul, and the text becomes plain; and the doc- 
trine is that a spirit God can be worshiped only by 
spirit worshipers, and hence man, to worship accepta- 
bly, must worship with his spiritual nature — with his 
soul and not merely with his body. 

Rom. viii. 16. "The spirit itself beareth witness 
with our spirit, that we are the children of God." In 
this text there is no doubt that we are to understand, 
by the Spirit," the Holy Ghost, and by ^' our spirit," 
the intellectual nature of man. The same word is used 
to denote spirit in both cases in the original, and must 
be intended to describe a similar essence. If " our 
spirit," means our body, our matter, or any thing about 
us that is material, then the Spirit," may mean the 
material substance of divinity, and the criticism which 
will make the one conclusion plain, will remove all the 
difficulties out of the way of the other. We trust 
we have now shown that the Scriptures furnish the 
same proof of the immateriality of the human soul, 
that they do that God is an immaterial spirit * and here 
we close this part of our investigation. 



IMMORTALITY OP THE SOUL. 



57 



CHAPTER II. 

THE RATIONAL SOUL OF MAN DOES NOT DIE WITH THK 
BODY, BUT MAINTAINS A CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE AFTER 
THE BODY IS DEAD. 

SECTION I. 

An argument from the immateriality, or spiritual nature of the soul. 

Our first argument in proof that the soul does not 
die with the body, but maintains a conscious existence 
after the body is dead, is drawn from its immateriality 
or spiritual nature. The foundation for this argument 
has been laid in the preceding numbers, in which the 
immateriality of the human soul has been proved. We 
are not called upon here to prove this point, but only 
to make an application of it, as a truth already estab- 
lished. 

Before we enter upon the direct argument, it is nec- 
essary to state the precise point to be proved by it. It 
has been misunderstood, and hence, met by a misdi- 
rected and insufficient reply. Rev. George Storrs, in 
his six sermons against the soul's immortality, meetl 
the argument thus : 

*^It is said — The soul is spiritual^ hence indestructi* 
hle^ and therefore immonal. One single consideration 
is sufficient to overthrow this argument^ and show that 
if has no force. He who created can destroy. Our 
Savior saith — ' Fear him who is able to destroy both 
fioul and body in hell.' " 



68 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOtTL, 



It should be remarked on this extract, that as a reply 
it is defective in two particulars : 

1. It assumes that " destruction," means a loss of 
conscious existence, when applied to the souL This 
is not admitted, but as it belongs to another division of 
our subject, we will not argue it here, but leave it to 
be attended to in its proper place, 

2. Its capital defect is, it entirely misapprehends the 
question. The argument does not rest upon the as- 
sumption that God cannot destroy or annihilate a spirit 
after he has created it, but only that the soul is immor* 
tal in its nature, having no tendency in itself to anni- 
hilation, and must exist forever, unless sent into non« 
existence by the same Almighty Power which gave it 
being. • There is an important distinction between the 
natural immortality of the soul^ and God^s power to 
annihilate it, which Mr. Storrs entirely overlooked in 
his attempt to meet the argument. God may be able 
to destroy what i§ immortal in its own nature, and 
what would live forever but for such destruction; 
hence, could it be proved that God can destroy the hu» 
man soul ; yea, could it be proved that he will annihi* 
late it, it would not follow that it is not ever-living in 
its own nature. If the soul is not immortal in its own 
nature, it must cease to exist by the operation of the 
laws of its being, just as the body does, and can need 
no destruction from the Almighty, any more than the 
body, to cause it to cease to exist. To argue that God 
can destroy the soul, as Mr. Storrs does, implies that 
it will not die of itself, without the direct exertion of 
Almighty Power to destroy it. The body is mortal^ is 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL- 



59 



a compound, an organism, and by the operation of the 
laws of its elemental and organic nature, must wear 
itself out and cease to exist, without being destroyed 
by the direct operation of external force, as is implied 
when Mr. Storrs affirms that God can destroy the souL 
On the other hand, if the soul is a simple spiritual 
essence, immaterial, uncompounded, and indivisible, it 
must be immortal in itself, and must exist forever, un- 
less actually destroyed by the Almighty Power that 
gave it existence. 

This argument then, is not designed to prove that 
God cannot destroy the human soul, nor even that he 
will not, but only that the soul, being spirit and not 
matter, simple and not compound, indivisible and not 
dissoluble, it must be immortal in its nature, and live 
after the body is dissolved ; yea, live forever, unless 
destroyed by the Almighty Power that gave it being. 
To this point we will now direct a fev/ thoughts. 

1. The soul being an immaterial^ uncompounded 
spiritual essence, as fully proved in the first chapter, 
it cannot be effected by such agents as operate 
upon and destroy compound bodies and organisms. 
Frost will kill the body, but no one will contend that 
an immaterial spirit can be frozen to death. The body 
is divisible, and may be cut to pieces, but it will not 
be pretended that an immaterial, intangible, indivisible 
soul can be cut to pieces, with saws, knives and axes. 
It is admitted that the soul resides in the body during 
our natural life ; now suppose a machine should be 
constructed, which at one blow would cut the body aa 
fine as the sand upon the sea shore, would the soul be 



60 



IMx^ORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



cut to pieces by the operation, admitting it to be in the 
body at the time 1 It certainly would not, unless that 
which is immaterial can fill space so as to obstruct 
matter — unless that which is intangible can be hit by a 
material engine, and unless that w^hich is indivisible 
can be divided. 

Suppose you cast both soul and body too:ether into 
a furnace as hot as the one prepared by Nebuchadnez- 
zar, and what will be the result 1 . The body will be 
consumed in a moment ; but the soul will not be burned 
up. An immaterial, uncompounded spirit cannot be 
affected by material fire, any more than it can by frost; 
it could dwell alike in the sun or in the polar regions. 
The reader will now see the importance and force of 
our long argument on the immateriality of the mind. 
It is a vital point ; if w^e have proved in the preceding 
chapter, that the human mind is an immaterial spirit, 
as we trust we have, the above reasoning shows ihat 
it must be immortal in its own nature, and that it will 
live forever unless it be destroyed by God its Maker. 
By all the conclusiveness, then, by which w^e have 
sustained the immateriality of the soul, does its immor- 
tality follow. 

2. The argument drawn from the immateriality of 
the soul, not only proves that it is immortal in itself, 
living forever, if left to the operations of the laws of its 
own nature, but it proves that God cannot destroy it, 
in the manner in which destructionists generally sup- 
pose. Be particular ; we do not say that God cannot 
annihilate a human soul, or any simple spirit which he 
has created, but only that he cannot do it in the man- 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



61 



ner in which destructionists generally contend he will 
do it. If God should annihilate the human soul, it 
would require a simple withdrawal of that Almighty 
Power which he put forth when he created it, and 
which not only sustains every human soul, hut the 
universe of both matter and mind. This mode of anni- 
hilation forms no part of the creed of destructionists; 
they argue their doctrine from the Scriptures, which 
threaten and describe the punishment of the wicked, 
and represent the loss of existence as a part of, and 
end of this punishment, and as the result of positive 
infliction and suffering; and hence, they rely upon the 
words, destroy, burned up, consumed, and other like 
expressions. The argument founded upon the spiritual 
nature of the soul, proves that God cannot annihilate 
it in this way. If God himself has made the soul im- 
material, he cannot destroy it by bringing material 
agents to act upon it. God cannot dissolve that which 
is uncompounded, or divide that which is indivisible. 
The reader is requested to bear in mind that the ques- 
tion at this point, is not — would the soul fall back into 
non-existence, should God withdraw his creating and 
sustaining power 1 but — can the soul be burned up, or 
be annihilated by the exertion of power upon it ? We 
will close this argument, with the following extract 
from Mr. Drew's essay on the immortality of the soul. 
It may not be conclusive in itself, but taken in con- 
nection with our reasoning, on the immateriality of the 
Bou], is not without its force 

" It has been already proved, that material bodies 
can never act but when they bring their surfaces into 



62 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOTTL, 



contact with each other. As an immaterial substance 
has no surface, it is a contradiction to suppose that 
matter can ever be brought into contact with it : to 
suppose such a contact possible, is to suppose a sur- 
face in an immaterial being, which at the same time is 
excluded by its natural immateriality. Whatever has 
an exterior, must have an interior ; and what has both 
must be extended : and what is thus extended, cannot 
be immaterial. An immaterial substance, therefore, 
can have no surface, and that which has no surface 
can never be brought into contact with that which has; 
it therefore follows that the soul must be inaccessible 
to all violence from matter, and that it cannot perish 
through its instrumentality. As matter can only act 
by contact, it follows that without being extended be- 
yond its physical nature, it never can destroy the soul. 
And to suppose matter to be thus extended, is to sup- 
pose it to be matter and not matter at the same time. 
Nor can any accession of power overcome the contra- 
diction. No acquisition of power can alter the identi- 
ty of its nature, or communicate to it a force of which 
its nature is incapable. 

''We can conceive that an accession of power can 
cause matter to accomplish everything which is placed 
within the reach of its nature : but to suppose mat- 
er to extend its influence beyond the limits of its own 
existence, or to act where it is not, is to suppose its 
presence and absence at the same time. And to sup- 
pose it to annihilate a nature with which it has no 
physical connection, is to suppose it to act where it can 
have no influence ; or that it can act and not act at the 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



same time ; which every one must see, is not only a 
moral but an absolute impossibility. It therefore fol- 
lows, that the soul cannot perish by the instrumental- 
ity of matter^ whatever influence be attributed to the 
application of its power ; hence in reference to every 
material weapon: 

" The soul, secure in her existence, smiles 
At the drawn dagger and defies its point." 

" It is certain that nothing cannot communicate what 
it does not possess 3 nor 'produce what it has not the 
power ol producing. A being which can communicate 
annihilation, must be one which is in existence, for 
that which is not in existence can communicate no- 
thing : and for the same reason can produce no effects. 
And that being which is in existence, cannot from the 
certainty of its own existence^ include the absence of 
existence within its nature, and consequently, can never 
communicate to another that absence of existence or 
annihilation which it does not possess itself. Anni- 
hilation therefore can never be communicated, either 
by a being which is in existence^ or by one which 
is not. 

If the soul be annihilated, it must be either 
by some thing which is in existence or by some thing 
which is not. But that which is in existence, can 
never produce what is physically contrary to itself » 
and that which has no existence can never act. The 
power which is supposed to reduce the soul to a point 
of annihilation, must either exist in this given point or 
it must not: — if it exist we have not yet arrived at that 
point which describes a nonentity : and where nonent- 



64 



IMMORTJLLITY OF THE SOUL# 



ity is not, annihilation can never be ) and if it exist 
not in this given point, the soul can never beanniliila- 
ted by its influence. 

" Annihilation must he the result of power or it must 
not. If it be the result of power, power must coniinue 
to operate upon a subject, until the subject itself, through 
the influence of that power be reduced to a nonentity. 
But in admitting power to have ^*an active operation, 
until it produces a nonentity, we admit a palpable con- 
tradiction. The admission of a power which is known 
to exist only because it produces a nonentity furnishes 
the mind with a chaos of contradictions — because that 
which produces a nonentity is not power but nothing.-^ 

The above extracts from Mr. Drew go to show that the 
soul cannot be annihilated, as destrurtionists suppose, 
by the punishments and pains of hell ] and as it (the 
soul) cannot be annihilated in the way they suppose, 
and as their arguments all tend to prove that it will take 
place in this way, so far as they prove anything, their 
entire theory must fall. But we have yet to con- 
sider the main point, which is the Bible doctrine on the 
subject 



SECTION n. 

An argument founded upon the common sentiment of mankind. 

That the heathen world believe that the soul survives 
the death of the body, and is imperishable, will not be 
denied by any one who has investigated the subject. 



I 

IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL 6^ 

The following summary of the evidence on this poin^ 
we quote, ready prepared to our purpose, from Thg 
Philosophy of a Future State," by Thomas Dick. 

" That the thinking principle in man is of an immor 
tal nature, was believed by the ancient Egyptians, the 
Persians, the Phenicians, the Scythians, the Celts, the 
Druids, the Assyrians, — by the wisest and the mos* 
celebrated characters among the Greeks and Romans, 
and by almost every other ancient nation and tribe 
whose records have reached our times. The notions, 
indeed, which many of them entertained of the scenes 
of futurity were very obscure and imperfect, but they 
all embraced the idea, that death is not the destruction 
of the rational soul, but only its introduction to a new 
and unknown state of existence. The ancient Scy- 
thians believed that death was only a change of habita- 
tion; and the Magian sect, which prevailed in Baby- 
lonia, Media, Assyria, and Persia, admitted the doctrine 
of eternal rewards and punishments. The doctrines 
taught by the second Zoroaster^ who lived in the time 
of Darius, were, ' that there is one Supreme Being, 
independent and self-existent from all eternity ; that 
under him there are two angels, one the angel of light, 
who is the author of all good ; and the other the angel 
of darkness, who is the author of all evil : that they 
are in a perpetual struggle with each other ; that where 
the angel of light prevails, there good reigns 3 and 
that where the angel of darkness prevails, there evil 
takes place; that this struggle shall continue to the 
end of the world ; that then there shall be a general 
resurrection and day of judgment, wherein all shall 



66 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOFL. 



receive a just retribution according to their works. 
After which, the angel of darkness and his disciples 
shall go into a world of their own, where they shall 
suffer in everlasting darkness, the punishment of their 
evil deeds ; and the angel of light and his disciples 
shall also go into a world of their own. where they shall 
receive, in everlasting light, the reward due to their 
good deeds- that after this they shall remain separated 
forever, and light and darkness be no more mixed to 
all eternity.'* The remains of this sect, which are 
scattered over Persia and India, still hold the same 
doctrines without any variation, even to this day. 

" It is well known, that Plato, Socrates, and other 
Greek Philosophers, held the doctrine of the soul's im- 
mortality. In his admirable dialogue, entitled, ' The 
Phaedon,' Plato represents Socrates, a little before his 
death, encompassed with a circle of philosophers, and 
discoursing with them on the arguments which prove 
the eternal destiny of man. 

" ' When the dead,' says he, ' are arrived at the ren- 
dezvous of departed souls, w^hither their an^^el conducts 
them, they are all judged. Those who have passed 
their lives in a manner neither entirely criminal, nor 
absolutely innocent, are sent into a place where they 
suffer pains proportioned to their faults, till, being 
purged and cleansed of their guilt, and afterwards re- 
stored to liberty, they receive the reward of the good 
actions they have done in the body. Those who are 
judged to be incurable, on account of the greatness of 
their crimes, the fatal Destiny that passes judgment 



* Rollings Ancient History, Vol. 2. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



67 



upon them, hurls them into Tartarus, from whence 
they never depart. Those who are found guilty of 
crimes, great indeed, but worthy of pardon, who have 
committed violences, in the transports of rage, against 
their father or mother, or have killed some one in a like 
emotion, and afterwards repented — sufier the same 
punishment with the last, but for a time only, till, by 
prayers and supplications, they have obtained pardon 
from those they have injured. But those who have 
passed through life with peculiar sanctity of manners, 
are received on high into a pure region, where they 
live without their bodies to all eternity, in a series of 
joys and delights which cannot be described.' From 
such considerations Socrates concludes, ' If the soul 
be immortal, it requires to be cultivated with attention, 
not only for what we call the time of life, but for that 
which is to follow, I mean eternity ; and the least 
neglect in this point maybe attended with endless con- 
sequences. If death were the final dissolution of 
being, the wicked would be great gainers by it, by 
being delivered at once from their bodies, their souls, 
and their vices ; but as the soul is immortal, it has no 
other means of being freed from its evils, nor any 
safety for it, but in becoming very good and very wise ; 
for it carries nothing with it, but its good or bad deeds, 
its virtues and vices, which are commonly the conse- 
quences of the education it has received, and the causes 
of eternal happiness or misery.' Having held such 
discourses with his friends, he kept silent for some 
time, and then drank of! the whole of the poisonous 
draught v;hich had been put into his hand, with amaz- 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



ing tranquillity, and an inexpressible serenity of aspect, 
as one who was about to exchange a short and wretched 
life, for a blessed and eternal existence. 

" The descriptions and allusions contained in the writ- 
ings of the ancient poets, are a convincing proof, that 
the notion of the soul's immortality was a universal 
opinion in the times in which they wrote, and among 
the nations to whom their writings were addressed. 
Homer's account of the descent of Ulysses into hell, 
and his description of Minos in the shades below, dis- 
tributing justice to the dead assembled in troops around 
his tribunal, and pronouncing irrevocable judgments, 
which decide their everlasting fate, demonstrate, that 
they entertained the belief, that virtues are rewarded, 
and that crimes are punished in another state of ex- 
istence. The poems of Ovid and Virgil contain a 
variety of descriptions, in which the same opinions are 
involved. Their notions of future punishment are set 
forth in the descriptions they give of Ixion, who was 
fastened to a wheel, and whirled about continually 
with a swift and rapid motion — of Tantalus, who for 
the loathsome banquet he made for the gods, was set 
in water up to the chin, with apples hanging to his 
very lips, yet had no power either to stoop to the one 
to quench his raging thirst, or to reach the other to 
satisfy his craving appetite — of the Fifty Daughters of 
Danaus, who, for the barbarous massacre of their hus- 
bands in one night, were condemned in hell to fill a 
barrel full of holes with water, which ran out again as 
fast as it was filled — of Sisyphus^ who for his robberies, 
was set to roll a great stone up a steep hill, which, 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



09 



when it was just at the top, suddenly fell down again, 
and SO renewed his labor —and of Tityus^ who was 
adjudged to have a vulture to feed upon his liver and 
entrails, which still grew and increased as they were 
devoured. Their notions of future happiness are em- 
bodied in the descriptions they have given of the Hes- 
perian gardens, and the Elysian fields, where the souls 
of the virtuous rest secure from every danger, and 
enjoy perpetual and uninterrupted bliss. 

" And as the nations of antiquity recognized the 
doctrine of a future state of existence, so there is 
scarcely a nation or tribe of mankind, presently exist- 
ing, however barbarous and untutored, in which the 
same opinion does not prevail. The natives of the 
Society Isles believe, that after death, there is not only 
a state of conscious existence, but degrees of eminence 
and felicity, according as men have been more or less 
pleasing to the Eatova, or Deity, while upon earth. 
The chiefs of the Friendly Islands believe in the im- 
mortality of the soul, which, at death, they say, is 
immediately conveyed in a fast-sailing canoe, to a dis- 
tant country, called Doobludha, which they describe 
as resembling the Mahometan paradise, — that those 
who are conveyed thither are no more subject to death, 
but feast on all the favorite productions of their native 
soil, with which this blissful abode is plentifully fur- 
nished. The New Zealanders believe, that the third 
day after the interment of a man, the heart separates 
itself from the corpse, and that this separation is an- 
nounced by a general breeze of vvind^ which gives 
warning of its approach, by an inferior divinity that 



70 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOITL, 



liovers over the grave, and who carries it to the clouds. 
They believe that the soul of the man whose flesh is de- 
voured by the enemy, is doomed to a perpetual fire, 
while the soul of the man whose body has been res- 
cued from those that killed him, and the souls of all 
who die a natural death, ascend to the habitations of 
the gods. The inhabitants of the Pelew Islands, 
according to the account of Captain Wilson, although 
they have few religious rites and ceremonies, believe 
in one Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards 
and punishments. In the religion of the Kalmuc Tar- 
tars, the doctrine of a future state holds a conspicuous 
place. They believe that hell is situated in the middle 
region, between heaven and earth, and their devils are 
represented with all sorts of frightful forms, of a black 
and hideous aspect, with the heads of goats, lions, and 
unicorns. Their holy Lamas, who have obtained a 
victory over all their passions, are supposed to pass 
immediately into heaven, where they enjoy perfect rest, 
and exercise themselves in divine service. The Samoie- 
dians of Northern Tartary believe, that there is one 
Supreme Being, that he is our all-merciful and common 
Parent, and that he will reward with a happy state, 
hereafter, those who live virtuously in this world. 
The Birmans believe in the transmigration of souls, 
after which, they maintain, that the radically bad will j 
he sentenced to lasting punishment, while the good j 
will enjoy eternal happiness on a mountain called, j 
Meru. j 

The various tribes which inhabit the continent of 
Africa, in so far as we are acquainted with their reli- 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



71 



gious opinions, appear to recognize the doctrine of a 
future state. * I was lately discoursing on this subject,' 
says Mr. Addison, in one of his Spectators, ' with a 
learned person, who has been very much conversant 
among the inhabitants of the most western parts of 
Africa. Upon his conversing with several in that 
country, he tells me, that their notions of heaven, or 
of a future state of happines, is this— that everything 
we there wish for will immediately present itself to ns. 
We find, say they, that our souls are of such a nature 
that they require variety, and are not capable of being 
always delighted with the same objects. The Supreme 
Being, therefore, in compliance with this taste of hap- 
piness which he has implanted in the soul of man, will 
raise up, from time to time, say they, every gratifica- 
tion which it is in the human nature to be pleased 
with. If we wish to be in groves or bowers, among 
running streams or falls of water, we shall immediately 
find ourselves in the midst of such a scene as we desire. 
If we would be entertained with music, and the melody 
of sounds, the concert arises upon our wish, and the 
whole region about us is filled with harmony. In short, 
every desire will be followed by fruition ; and what- 
ever a man's inclination directs him to, will be present 
with him.' The Negroes, and other inhabitants of the 
interior of Africa, according to the account of Mr. Park, 
believe in one Supreme Ruler, and expect hereafter to 
enter into a state of misery or felicity. The Gallas of 
Abyssinia, though they reject the doctrine of future pun 
ishment, admit the reality of a future state. " The Man 
dingoes, the Jaloffs, the Feloops, the Foulahs, the 



72 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



Moors, and all the other tribes who have embraced the 
Mahometan faith, recognize the doctrine of the immor- 
tality of the soul, and of future rewards in a celestial 
paradise. The natives of Dahomy entertain the same 
belief; and hence it is a common practice with the 
sovereign of that country, to send an account to his 
forefathers of any remarkable event, by delivering a 
message to whoever may happen to be near him at the 
time, and then ordering his head to be chopped off im- 
mediately, that he may serve as a courier, to convey 
intelligence to the world of spirits.-^f- 

The Persians are said to leave one part of their 
gra'-^^s open, from a belief, that the dead will be reani- 
mated, and visited by angels, who will appoint them 
to their appropriate abodes in a future state. From a 
similar belief, thousands of Hindoo widows annually 
sacrifice themselves on the funeral piles of their de- 
ceased husbands, in the hope of enjoying wnth them 
the felicities of eternal life. The Japanese believe that 
the souls of men and beasts are alike immortal; that a 
just distribution of rewards and punishments take 
place after death ; that there are different degrees of 
happiness^ as well as of punishment, and that the 
souls of the wicked transmigrate, after death, into the 
bodies of animals, and at last, in case of amendment, 
are translated back again into the human form.f From 
a conviction of the reality of a future world, the Wa- 
habee Arabs regard it as impious to mourn for the 
dead, ^A^ho, they say, are enjoying felicity with Ma- 
homet in paraaise ; and the Javanese make several 



♦M^Leod's Voyage to Africa, 1820, p. 64. f Thumberg's Travels. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 73 

feasts, on the decease of their, friends and relations, to 
commemorate their entrance into a world of bliss. The 
North American Indians believe that beyond the most 
distant mountains of their country, there is a wide 
river 3 beyond that river a great country j on the other 
side of that country, a world of water; in that water 
are a thousand islands, full of trees and streams of 
water, and that a thousand bulfaloes, and ten thousand 
deer, graze on the hills, or ruminate in the valleys. 
When they die, they are persuaded that the Great 
Spirit will conduct them to this land of souls. 

Thus it appears, that not only the philosophers of 
antiquity, and the most civilized nations presently 
existing on the globe, have recognized the doctrine of 
the immortality of man, but that even the most savage 
and untutored tribes fortify their minds in the prospect 
of death, with the hope of a happiness commensurate 
to their desires, in the regions beyond the grave. 

Even the poor maian whose untutored mind 
Sees God in clouds, or hears Him in the wind, 
Whose soul proud science never taught to stray 
Far as the solar walk or milky way — 
Yet simple nature to his hope has given 
Behind the cloud-topt hill, an humbler heaven; 
Some safer world in depth of woods embraced, 
Some happier island in the watery waste, 
Where slaves once more their native land behold, 
No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold — 
And thinks, admitted to yon equal sky, 
His faithful dog shall bear him company.' — Pope. 

" Among the numerous and diversified tribes that 
are scattered over the different regions of the earth, 
that agree in scarcely any other sentiment or article of 
religious belief, we here find the most perfect harmony, 
in their recognition of a Supreme Intelligence, and in 

3 



74 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



their belief that the soul survives the dissolution of its 
mortal frame." 

The above proves the point beyond the pov^er of 
contradiction, that a belief in the immortality of the 
human soul is common to our race, and we submit it 
as very strong presumptive evidence of the truth of the 
doctrine. 

We ask then, in conclusion, from whence did this 
almost universal belief in the immortality of the soul 
spring 1 If it were local, we should infer that it was 
the ofispring of some local cause, but as it is general, 
pervading all ages, and all lands, and all societies, it 
must have a cause as general as the effect produced. 

If the doctrine of a future existence be an error^ it 
is the most general one that ever entered the world, 
and must have been introduced in the most insidious 
manner. Other errors may generally be traced to their 
sources, and their authors, and the time of their intro- 
duction be pointed out j but no account of the origin 
of the doctrine of life, of the soul after the death of 
the body can be given, on the supposition that it is 
false. If some errors cannot be traced back to their 
origin, they are not general in the world, but are pecu- 
liar to particular nations, tribes, or sects ; while the 
sentiment in question is a general one, and prevails 
most where the Scriptures are most known and read. 
The doctrine must have had its origin } and as it pre- 
vails generally in the world, and as no account can be 
given of its introduction, it follows that it must have 
sprung from some one of the following sources : — It 
must be instinct, the result of natural reason, from the 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



75 



light of nature, the impression of God's spirit on the 
mind, or the principle of revelation contained in the 
Bible. Now, if it be instinct, it must be from the 
Creator^ if it be the result of natural reason, it cannot 
be unreasonable ^ if it be from the light of nature, it is 
a revelation from God ; if it be the impression of God's 
Spirit on the mind, it is no less a Divine revelation ; 
and if it be the sentiment of the Bible, none but infidels 
will deny it. If destructionists can prove that the 
doctrine in question had some other origin, or if some 
other sentiment can be named, manifestly false, and 
equally common in the world, of the origin of which 
no account can be given, we acknowledge that they 
will evade the force of this argument- but until this 
be done the argument must prove ruinous to their theory. 



SECTION III. 
An argument founded upon tlie well known opinions of the JeTfS. 

The Jews have always believed in the conscious 
existence of the soul after the death of the body, and 
in its immortality. We might prove this from the 
Scriptures, but prefer to introduce other witnesses first, 
and will here treat of the faith of the Jews as a matter 
of history. It was shown in the preceding number, 
that the common sentiments of the heathen world 
have ever been in favor of the doctrine we advocate, 
and if it can now be shown that the same doctrine has 
ever been held by the Jews, to whom was committed 



76 



IMMORTALITY 0^ THE SOUL, 



the oracles of God, it will greatly strengthen our argu- 
ment. . The first witness we will introduce is Josephus, 
who is the first authority in matters relating to the 
Jews. 

"The Jews had for a great while, three sects of 
philosophers, peculiar to themselves ; the sect of the 
Essenes, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third 
sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees. 

Now the Pharisees believe that souls have an im- 
mortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there 
will be rewards and punishments, accordingly as they 
have lived virtuously or viciously in this life. 

" But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this, that souls 
die with the body. But this doctrine is received but 
by a few, yet by those of the greatest dignity. But 
they are able almost to do nothing of them.selves • for 
when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly 
and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict them- 
selves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the 
multitude would not otherwise hear them. 

" The doctrine of the Essenes is this, that all things 
are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality 
of souls, and esteem that the rewards of righteousness 
are to be earnestly striven for." — Josephus, Booh 18, 
Chap, 1, 

It is worthy of remark that of the three sects into 
which the Jews were divided, two clearly believed in 
the immortality of the soul. Further, the Sadducees, 
who alone believed that the soul dies with the body, 
were very few in number, and had no influence with 
the common people. This proves that theirs was not 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



77 



the doctrine of tne Jews, but an exception to it. They 
were composed of a few of the wealthy high-liver8, 
and were clearly a set of Jewish heretics, as is proved 
fiom the fact that Christ so clearly condemned their 
doctrine. 

The next witness we will introduce is the Jews' 
service book, containing their creed and prayers. 

The seventh article of their creed runs thus : — " I 
believe with a perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses, 
our instructor, (may his soul rest in peace) was true." 
In one of their Sabbath morning prayers we find the 
following expression : — " Therefore, the members of 
which thou hast formed us, the spirit and soul which 
thou hast breathed into us." 

In an evening prayer we find the following :— 
" Blessed be the Lord when we lie down, and blessed 
be the Lord when we rise up • for in thy hand are the 
souls of the quick and the dead." 

The following is taken from a prayer which they 
read at funerals. After the lecture or discourse, the 
prayer is read, as follows: — "We beseech thee, 0 
Lord, most merciful King ! in whose hand is the soul 
of every living thing, and the breath of all flesh • let 
it be willed before thy presence that the lecture and 
our prayer be in behalf of [here the name of the dead 
person is pronounced] and be bountiful to her [or him] 
according to thy great mercy; 0 unfold for her [or him] 
the gate of mercy, compassion, and the garden of Eden ; 
and receive her [or him] with love and favor. Send 
unto her [or him] thy holy an.gels to direc-t and to 
place her [or him] beneath the tree of life, near the 



78 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



souls of the righteous, virtiioas and pious saints.'' 

The above extracts are sufficient to prove that the 
immortality of the soul is clearly recognized in the 
Jewish religion. The question here is not, are they 
righf? but do they believe in the immortality of the soul '? 

The third witness which we produce, is the Apoch- 
rypha. These writings are not quoted as Bible, but as 
history ; and though they are not regarded as being 
divinely inspired, they are Jewish writings and are 
good authority in proof of the opinions that prevailed 
at the time they were written. A few plain texts will 
settle this question. 

2. Esdras, ix. 11, 12. And they that loathed my 
law, while they had yet liberty, and when as yet place 
of repentance was open unto them, understood, but 
despised it, the same must know it after death by pain." 
This certainly looks like a belief in the conscious ex- 
istence of the soul after the body is dead. 

Wisdam, ix. 15. ''The corruptible body presseth 
down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth 
down the mind that museth upon many things." This 
makes a clear distinction between the body and soul. 
The expression, corruptible body in contradistinction 
from soul, implies that the soul is not corruptible ; and 
earthly tabernacle, in contradistinction from the mind, 
that inhabits it, implies that the mind is not earthly. 
But there are more distinct proofs. 

Chap. xvi. 14. ^' A man indeed killeth through his 
malice ; and the spirit, when it is gone forth, returneth 
not; neither the soul received up cometh again." This 
cannot be made plainer by comment. Chap. iii. 1, 2, 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL 



79 



3,4, 5,6, 10, 17, 18, 19. ^' But the souls of the 
righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no 
torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they 
seemed to die, and their departure is taken for misery, 
and their going from us to be utter destruction ; but 
they are in peace. For though they be punished in 
the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality. 
And having been a little chastised, for God proved 
them and found them worthy for himself. As gold in 
the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a 
burnt offering. But the ungodly shall be punished 
according to their own imaginations, which have neg- 
lected the righteous and forsaken the Lord. For 
though they live long, yet shall they be nothing re- 
garded, and their last age shall be without honor ; or if 
they die they have no hope, neither comfort in the day 
of trial, for horrible is the end of the unrighteous 
generation." 

The above quotations are sufficient to prove that the 
writers of the Apochrypha were believers in the im- 
mortaity of the soul. It is said of the souls of the 
righteous, that " in the sight of the unwise they seem 
to die," that their going from us is taken to be utter 
destruction ; but they are in peace,— -their hope is full 
of immortality." Nothing could be more to the point. 
The above is not quoted as inspiration, but only as 
any other writings would be quoted, to prove what 
were the opinions that prevailed at the time and place 
when the authors wrote. The books of the Apoch- 
rypha are supposed to have been written before the 
commencement of the christian era, and were clearly 



80 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



ritten by Jews, who were familiar with the Jewish 
religion, and are therefore good authority in proof that 
the doctrine of the immortality of the soul prevailed at 
that time. 

Our final witness on this point is the Bible. We do 
not propose to introduce our main Bible argument in 
this place^ but only quote a few texts to show what 
was the prevailing belief of the Jews. The Jews held 
the common doctrine of the appearance of ghosts or 
spirits, which is inseparable from a belief in the ex- 
istence of the soul after death. A few texts will settle 
this point. 

Matt. xiv. 26. "And when the disciples saw him 
walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, it is a 
spirit : and they cried out for fear." Mark, vi. 49. 

But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they 
supposed it had been a sj)irit, and cried out.'' Luke, 
xxiv. 36 — 39. "And as they thus spake, Jesus him- 
self stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, 
peace be unto you. But they were terrified and af- 
frighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 
And he said unto them, why are ye troubled ? and 
why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my 
hands and my feet, that it is I myself : handle me and 
see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me 
have." 

These texts not only prove that the Jews believed 
in the existence of departed spirits, but they appear to 
give it the sanction of Christ. He did not even give 
them the slightest hint that they were in error in he- 
living in the existence of spirits. The fact that he was 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



81 



tangible, he appears to consider sufficient proof that he 
was not a spirit. 

Acts, xxiii. 8. " For the Sadducees say that there 
is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit : but the 
Pharisees confess both." This text taken in connec- 
tion with other well understood facts, most clearly 
proves what was the general doctrine of the Jews. 
The Sadducees were few ia number, while the Phari- 
sees were numerous, and lead the masses. Again, 
Christ condemned the doctrine of the Sadducees and 
approved of that held by the Pharisees See Matt., 
xxii. 23, Mark, xii. 18, and Luke, xx. 27. The Sad- 
ducees were clearly a set of heretics, and the Pharisees 
held the true doctrine on the subject. What then did 
the Pharisees believe ? Just what the Sadducees de- 
nied, which was the resurrection of the dead, and the 
existence of disembodied or immaterial beings in the 
form of angels or departed spirits. "The Pharisees 
confess both." Both denotes two things, viz : the 
resurrection of the dead, which is the first thing denied 
by the Sadducees, and the existence of angels and dis- 
embodied spirits, which is the second thing denied by 
the Sadducees ; the existence of angels and spirits 
beirig classed together as one article of faith. The 
Pharisees were the orthodox Jews, and were the rep- 
resentatives of the national doctrine, and they con- 
fessed both ; that is, they confessed, first, that the dead 
would be raised, and, secondly, that there are angels 
and disembodied spirits. This clearly proves the point, 
that they believed that the soul exists after the death 
of the body. 



82 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



The whole of the proof here presented, taken to- 
gether, can leave no ground to doubt concerning the 
belief of the Jews. Vie have proved our point, first, 
from Josephus, secondly, from the Jewish Prayer 
Book and Creed, thirdly, from the Apochrypha, and 
fourthly, from the Bible, and on these testimonials we 
rest the conclusion that the Jews believed in the im- 
mortality of the soul. The force of this position will 
be more distinctly seen and felt at another point in the 
argument, yet here it has its force, in view of the fact 
that they were favored w^ith the oracles of God. and 
that Jesus Christ walked and taught among them, 
without ever correcting their opinions on the subject, 
though he rebuked the opposite doctrine of the Sad- 
ducees. 



SECTION IV. 

The Primitire Chnrcli believed that the scml maintained a con- 
scious existence after the death of the body. 

• In an investigation like the one in which we are 
engaged, it is of the utmost importance to understand 
what was the doctrine of the early Christians, who re- 
ceived their instructions from the Apostles, and those 
who immediately succeeded them. If the first Chris- 
tians and Martyrs lived and died in the belief that the 
soul would enter immediately upon a happy future ex- 
istence, when the body died, it appears almost impossi- 
ble that any one should doubt the truth of the doctrine. 



IMMORTALlTt 0^* THE SOtJL. 83 

This point we will now attempt to prove We will 
first give a few extracts from the writings of the Apos- 
tolic Fathers. We quote from Arch-bishop Wake's 
translation, London edition, 1840. The following, 
from the first epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, 
clearly contains the doctrine for which we contend : 

Let us set before our eyes the holy apostle ; Peter, 
by unjust envy, underwent, not one or two, but many 
sufferings ; till at last, being martyred, he went to the 
place of gbry that was due unto him. For the same 
cause did Paul in like manner receive the reward of his 
patience. Seven times he was in bonds ; he was 
whipped, was stoned ; he preached both in the east 
and in the west, leaving behind him the glorious report 
of his faith ] and so having taught the whole world 
righteousness, and for that end traveled even to the ut» 
most bounds of the west, he a* last suffered martyrdom, 
by the command of the governors, and departed. out of 
the world, and went unto his holy place, being become 
a most eminent pattern of patience unto all ages. 

" To these holy apostles were joined a very great 
number of others, who, having through envy under- 
gone, in like manner, many pains and torments, have 
left a glorious example to us. For this, not only men, 
but women, have been persecuted, and, having suffered 
very grievous and cruel punishments, have finished 
the course of their faith with firmness, and, though 
weak in body, yet received a glorious reward." — P. 60. 

The above speaks too plainly to be misunderstood. 
Of Paul it is said, he "departed out of this world 
and went to his holy place." If Paul's soul died with 



S4 IMMORTALITY OF THE SODti. 

his body, and both sleep until now ; if his great mind 
was only his brains, which were decomposed after his 
death, the fluids evaporated, and the solids returned 
to dust, to be blown in ten thousand directions : in the 
name of common sense, to what holy place did he go T 
So of all the Martyr's it is said, they " received a glori 
ous reward." According to the theory we oppose, they 
received no reward but to die — be eaten up by wild 
beasts — burned to ashes, or be consumed by worms, 
and have their fluids mingle with the waters of earth 
and heaven, and their solids mingle with the dust of 
earth. Is it a glorious reward to be lost amid the 
waters of the world, to ascend in the vapor, and fall in 
the rain and the dew, and in the snow and the hoar 
frost 1 is it a glorious reward to become fine dust, and 
be made the sport of the winds, and be blown along 
the streets, a-nd even blinding the eyes of the livino:, to 
their annoyance 1: If not, then St. Clement did not 
believe that the mind is matter, and that it dies with 
the body. 

The following is from the Epistle of St. Polycarp to 
the Philippians : 

" Wherefore I exhort ail of you that ye obey the 
word of righteousness, and exercise all patience, which 
ye have seen set forth before your eyes, not only in 
the blessed Ignatius, ajid Zozimus, and Rufus, but 
in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and 
the rest of the apostles. Being confident of this, that 
all these have not run in vain, but in faith and right- 
eousness, and are gone to the place that was due to 
them from the Lord, with whom also they suffered ; 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



85 



for they loved not this present world, but him who 
died, and was raised again by God for us."— P. 109. 

Here it is declared that those who were dead are 
gone to the place that was due to. them from the Lord." 
Was that place non-existence? Surely not, for he 
said, " I go to prepare a place for you." " Father, I 
will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with 
me where I am that they may behold my glory." 

The following is from the Epistle of Ignatius to the 
Trallians : 

" Stop your ears therefore, as often as any one shall 
speak contrary to Jesus Christ, who was of the race of 
David, of the Virgin Mary ; who was truly born, and 
did eat and drink } and was truly persecuted under 
Pontius Pilate J was truly crucified and deady both 
those in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, 
being spectators of it. Who was also truly raised 
from the dead by his Father, after the manner as He 
will also raise up us who believe in him, by Christ 
Jesus, without whom we have no true life." — P. 142. 

The strong point in this extract is the assertion that, 
" those in heaven and on earth, and under the earth," 
were spectators of Christ's death and resurrection. 
This three-fold expression includes the living, the 
saved and the lost, and of course death was not, in the 
mind of the writer, the extinction of being. 

The following is from the Epistle of St. Ignatius to 
the Romans , 

^^Bat I would not that ye should please men, but 
God; whom also ye do please. For neither shall I 
ever hereafter have such an opportunity of going unto 



86 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL* 



God ; nor will you, if ye shall now be silent, ever be 
entitled to a better work. For if you shall be silent 
in my behalf, I shall be made partaker of God ; but if 
you shall love my body, I shall have my course again 
to run."— Pp. 146, 147. 

Again he says — 
All the ends of the world, and the kingdoms of it, 
will profit me nothing; I would rather die for Jesus 
Christ, than rule to the utmost ends of the earth. — 
Him I seek who died for us ; Him I desire who rose 
again for us. This is the gain that is laid up for me. 
Pardon me, my brethren; ye shall not hinder me from 
living : [nor, seeing I desire to go to God, may you 
separate me from him for the sake of this world ; nor 
seduce me by any of the desires of it]. Sillier me to 
enter into pure light ; where being come, I shall be in- 
deed the servant of God."— Pp. 148, 149. 

In the above extracts the writer is speaking of his 
impending martyrdom, and requests them not to inter- 
fere to prevent it. He calls it, " going to God," and 
being " made partaker of God." He represents 
their preventing his martyrdom, as hindering 
him " from living ;" and separating him " from 
God for the sake of the world ;" and finally, he repre- 
sents his suffering martyrdom, the same as to " enter 
into pure light ; where oeing come," he says, I shall 
be the servant of God." Surely he did not beheve his 
material brains were all the mind he had, nor could he 
have embraced the cold, dark doctrine of the death 
sleep of the souL 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



87 



The following is from the same author's epistle to 
the S my means : 

*'Now all these things he suffered for us, that we 
might be saved. And he suffered truly, as he also 
truly raised up himself ; and not, as some unbelievers 
say, that he only seemed to suffer, they themselves 
only seeming to be. And as they believe, so it shall 
happen unto them ] when being divested of the body, 
they shall become mere spirits." — Pp. 158, 159. 

" For if all these things were done only in show by 
our Lord, then do I also seem only to be bound. And 
why have I given myself up to death, to the fire, to the 
sword, to wild beasts } But now the nearer I am to 
the sword, the nearer I am to God ; when I shall come 
among the wild beasts, I shall come to God. Only, in 
the name of Jesus Christ, I undergo all, to suffer to- 
gether with him * He who was made a perfect man 
strengthening me." — P. 159. 

The above extracts cannot be made more forcible, 
or more clearly to express the doctrine of the life o! 
the soul after the death of the body, by any comments 
we might add. 

The following is from the account of the martyrdom 
of St. Ignatius : 

Wherefore with much readiness and joy, out of 
his desire to suffer, he left Antioch and came to Seleu- 
cia ; from whence he was to sail. And after a great 
deal of toil, being come to Smyrna, he left the ship 
with great gladness and hastened to see the holy Poly- 
carp, his fellow-scholar, who was bishop there ; for they 
had both of them been formerly the disciples of St. John. 



88 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



" Being brought to him, and communicating to him 
some spiriuial gifts, and glorying in his bonds, he en- 
treated, first of all, the whole church (for the churches 
and cities of Asia attended this holy man by their 
bishops, and priests, and deacons^ all hastening to him, 
if by any means they might receive some part of his 
spiritual gift), but more particularly Polycarp, to con- 
tend with God in his behalf ; that being suddenly 
taken by the beasts from the world, he might appear 
before the face of Christ. And this he thus spake, 
and testified, extending so much his love for Christ as 
one who was about to receive heaven through his own 
good confession, and the earnest contention of those 
who prayed together with him." — Pp. 179, 180. 

The following is from an epistle or circular which 
the church of Smyrna sent out concerning the martyr- 
dom of Polycarp : 

" Wherefore being supported by the grace of Christ, 
they despised all the torments of the world ; by the 
sufferings of an hour redeeming themselves from ever- 
lasting punishment. For this cause, even the fire of 
their cruel and barbarous executioners seemed cold to 
them ; whilst they hoped thereby to escape that fire 
which is eternal, and shall never be extinguished • and 
beheld, with the eyes of faith, those good things which 
are reserved for them that endure to the end ; ' which 
neither ear has heard, nor eye seen, nor have they en- 
tered into the heart of man.' But to them they were 
now revealed by the Lord; as being no longer men, 
but already become angels." — P. 193. 

"But when the emulous, and envious, and wicked 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



89 



adversary of the race of the just, saw the greatness of 
his martyrdom, and considered how irreprehensible his 
conversation had been from the beginning, and how he 
was now to be crowned with the crown of immortality, 
having without all controversy received his reward, he 
took all possible care that not the least remainder oi 
his body should be taken away by us, although many 
desired to do it, and to be made partakers of his holy 
fiesh. And to that end, he suggested it to Nicetas, the 
father of Herod and brother of Alee, to go to the gov- 
ernor, and hinder him from giving us his body to be 
buried."— P, 200. 

" For having by patience overcome the unjust gov- 
ernor, and so received the crown of immortality, he 
now, together w^ith the apostles, and all other righteous 
men who have gone before, with great triumph glorifies 
God, even the Father, and blesses our Lord, the gov- 
ernor both of our souls and bodies, and shepherd of 
the Catholic Church which is over all the earth." — 
P. 201. 

These extracts from the Fathers, show clearly that 
the early churches who were moulded by the hand of 
inspired apostles, held the doctrine of an intermediate 
state, and the immortality of the soul. Ignatius suffered 
martyrdom in the 147th year of the Christian Era. 

The next work we will introduce, is, the Ecclesias- 
tical History of Eusebius. Eusebius wrote the first 
history of the Christian Church, that was ever written, 
excepting the Acts of the Apostles, and his work is the 
Lest authority concerning the first three centuries of the 
Christian Era, which we have, after the New Testa- 



90 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



ment itself. A few extracts will be sufficient. We 
quote by page, from the Philadelphia edition, 1833. It 
will be seen that Eusebius speaks of some of the same 
transactions as those described by some of the other 
writers previously quoted. In speaking of the mar- 
tyrdom of Polycarp, he makes the following remark 
concerning him, after he was dead : " But that envi- 
ous and malignant adversary, that wicked enemy of 
all the iighteous, seeing the lustre of his martyrdom, 
and his uniform walk and conversation, and him now 
crowned with the crown of immortality, and bearing 
oft the indisputable prize, had provided that not even 
his corpse could be obtained by us." — P. 148. 

This dearly speaks of his having been already 
crowned with the crown of immortality, while his 
corpse was yet with them unburied. A clearer proof 
could hardly be given, of the writer's belief in the 
immortality of the soul. 

In giving an account of the martyrdom of Lucius, 
he represents him as saying to his judge, " I thank 
thee, for now I am liberated from wicked masters, and 
am going to God." — P. 154. 

In speaking of the martyrs that suffered in Gaul, he 
says : " The firmness of the champions for the true 
religion, their fortitude in the endurance of numberless 
trials, their trophies erected over demoniacal agency, 
and their victories over their invisible antagonists, and 
the crowns that have been placed upon all these ; it 
would proclaim and perpetuate by an everlasting re- 
membrance. — P. 168. 

In speaking of the martyrdom of Blandina. he says : 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



91 



**Thus she overcame the enemy, in many trials, and 
in the conflict received the crown of immortality." — 
P. 176. Again it is said : " But the blessed Blandi- 
na, last of all, as a noble mother that had animated her 
children, and sent them as victors to the king, herself 
with joy hastened to them, as if she were invited to a 
marriage feast, and not to be cast to wild beasts." — 
P 179. 

Of the martyrs m general, he says: "Always lov- 
ers of peace, they always recommended peace, and with 
peace they departed to God." — P. 182. All these pas- 
sages contain clear evidence of a belief in the doctrine 
of an intermediate state,- on the part of the martyrs. 
Lucius said, when suffering martyrdom, " I am going 
to God," The expression, " the crowns that have been 
placed upon all these," when applied to the dead, 
proves a belief in the life of the soul after the death of 
the body. " She received the crown of immortality," 
spoken of one already dead, proves the point. The 
martyrs are said to have been sent away to the king, 
and then Blandina is said to have hastened io them, 
when she was martyred. In the face of these proofs, 
are we to be told that the early christians believed that 
soul and body die together, and must sleep together 
until the end of the world ? 

When Basilides, an officer, was leading Poiamisena 
to execution, he protected her against the insults of the 
multitude, in view of which, it is said of her, " Per- 
ceiving the man's sympathy, she exhorted him to be of 
good cheer, for that after she was gone, she would in- 
tercede for him with her Lord, and it would not be 



92 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



long before she would reward him for his kind deeds 
towards her."— P. 224. 

Soon after the above occurrence, Basilides himself 
was committed to prison, on his own declaration that 
he was a christian ; and when some of the brethren 
called upon him to learn the ground of his sudden 
change, " he is said to have declared that Potamiaena, 
three days after her martyrdom, standing before him at 
night, placed a crown upon his head, and said that she 
had entreated the Lord on his account, and that she 
had obtained her prayer, and that ere long she would 
take him to her." — lb. 

. The reader may abate what he pleases for the vision 
part of this extract, and still it will prove all that we 
claim to prove by it, viz : what was the belief, at that 
time, concerning the life of the soul after the death of 
the body. If the vision was a reality, our doctrine has 
the proof of a miracle ; but suppose it to have been a 
creature of the fancy, it still contains the following 
facts ; First, the martyr, while being led to execution, 
instead of supposing her soul was about to die with her 
body, she believed it would live, and so enter into the 
presence of Christ, as to enable her to intercede with 
him for her sympathizing executioner. Secondly, 
this was also believed by the executioner, a military 
officer, making such an impression on his mind, that 
he fancied he saw her in a vision, unless she did really 
appear to him ; and so strong was his belief that the 
martyr's soul was alive after her body had been burned 
to ashes, and that he had seen her, that he submitted 
to be beheaded for the sake of the faith. Thirdly, 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



93 



the most learned and pious christian writers of those 
times, recorded these things, most clearly, in full faith 
that they were true. This proves heyond a doubt, that 
christians generally, at that time, must hare held that 
the soul lives after the body is dead. 

On one occasion, when the judge had condemned 
one to martyrdom, and he had been executed, another 
was seized and brought before him, and then it is said, 
that the judge, "as if to urge him to attach himself to 
the former as his companion on the way to heaven, 
commanded him immediately to be put to death." — P. 
372. This clearly shows that the death sleep the 
soul was unknown to the faith and language of those 
times. Of this same martyr, it is said again, He was 
the tenth after those wrestlers mentioned, that were 
perfected on one and the same day, on which, as is 
probable, the mighty portals of eternal life were opened 
to Pamphilus, in a manner worthy of the man, and 
presented to him and to others, a ready entrance into 
the kingdom of heaven." — lb. Such expressions, as 
the portals of eternal life being open to men when they 
die, giving a " ready entrance into the kingdom of 
heaven," clearly proves that the doctrine of the immor- 
tality of the soul, was held by the writers. One John, 
an Egyptian christian, is said to have lost his eyes, and 
to have been crippled in his limbs by the tortures he 
endured ; yet such was his memory, that he could re- 
peat whole books of the Sacred Scriptures. In speak- 
ing of having' seen him and heard him address an as- 
sembly, our author says: "I seemed to behold an evi- 
dence, and solid proof in facts, that not he who appear 



94 



IMMCKTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



in the external form is the real man, but in truth that 
which is in the soul and mind. For he, though muti* 
lated in body, exhibited the greater power."— P. 177. 
This language indicates a belief in the existence of the 
soul, as something different from the body, which is 
not affected by its decay. 

We will now give our concluding extract from Euse- 
bius. It proves clearly that the death sleep of the 
soul, was not the doctrine of the church in the times 
of which he wrote. On the subject of the errors of 
the times, Eusebius says: " But about this time, other 
men sprung up in Arabia, as the propagators of false 
opinions. These asserted, that the human soul, as long 
as the present state of the world exists, perished at 
death and died with the body, but that it would be 
raised again with the body at the time of the resurrec- 
tion. And as a considerable council was held on ac- 
count of this, Origen, being again requested, likewise 
here discussed the point in question, with so much 
force, that those who had before been led astray, com- 
pletely changed their opinions." — P. 253. 

This shows that the death sleep of the soul was 
never heard of in the christian church before this 
period, which must have been early in the third cen- 
tury, as Origen was born in the year 185, and died 
253. The doctrine described is precisely that which is 
now maintained by Rev. George Storrs, and others who 
sympathize with his views. And it is here plain, that 
it was not the doctrine of the early church ] that it was 
introduced early in the third century, refuted and 
abandoned. It is not necessary to pursue this point 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL^ 



95 



further, and here we close the use we make of the 
testimony of Eusebius, though there are other similar 
passages we might quote. 



SECTION V. 

Direct Scriptural proof that the soul lives after the body is dead 

Before enteling upon the Bible argument, it appears 
proper to sum up what has preceeded, that it may be 
seen where we are, and in what particular state we 
carry the question into the Scriptures. The following 
points have been proved : 

1. The doctrine, that the soul maintains a conscious 
existence after the body is dead, has the support of the 
common sentiment of mankind, and is taught by every 
system oi religion that has been propagated in every 
age and land. The few who have denied it as a part 
of their religion, have been exceptions^ and have been 
so few in number as not to constitute a religious sys- 
tem or organization. 

2. The Jews in particular held this doctrine. The 
denial of the doctrine by the Sadducees is referred to 
in a manner which shows their views to have been an 
exception, and renders the evidence more certain that 
the opposite was the general doctrine, than it would 
have been if no allusions had been made to exceptions. 

3. The early Christians most clearly believed the 
doctrine in question 5 and under the influence of their 



96 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



faith, confessors and martyrs bore every possible tor- 
ture and joyfully died 

With these points full in view, we invite the reader 
to accompany us in an investigation of the subject sim- 
ply as a Bible question. The fact being established 
beyond a doubt, that the Jews and early Christians held 
the doctrine for which we contend, must furnish essen- 
tial aid in the interpretation of those Scriptures, wbich 
refer to the subject. The language of Christ and his 
apostles, must be easier understood after having ar- 
rived at a clear understanding of the sentiments held 
by those whom they addressed. With these remarks, 
we enter upon our argument founded upon the word 
of God. 

Eccl. iii. 21. " Who knoweth the spirit of man that 
goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth 
downward ^o the earth Dr. Clark, whose know- 
ledge of Hebrew will not be questioned, says the lite- 
ral translation of this text, is thus : " Who considereth 
the immortal spirit of the sons of Adam, which ascend- 
eth It is from above ; and the spirit or breath of the 
cdtile, which descendeth T It is downwards unto the 
earth, that is, it tends to the earth only.-' 

The following has been handed to us, by Prof. Roy, 
author of Roy's Hebrew and English Dictionary, which 
he affirms to be a true and literal translation of the 
text. 

Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of Adam that 
ascci.ds upward to the highest place ; or even the spirit 
of the v'cV^Ae which descend* downwards into the lowest 
part of ih'' *^Mrth." 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



97 



It will be seen that these translations essentially 
agree, and the text as it stands in our own common 
translation, or as here rendered, contains the following 
points : 

1. The spirit of a man and the spirit of a brute are 
distinguished the one from the other, and are particular- 
ly marked as tending in different directions, so that the 
destiny of the one cannot be inferred from the destiny 
of the other. 

2. The expression, *' the spirit of a man that goeth 
upward," clearly denotes, not only continued, but more 
elevated existence, and hence it may be regarded as a 
proof that the spirit survives the death of the body. 

Eccl. xii, 7. " Then shall the dust return to the 
earth as it was : and the spirit shall return unto God 
who gave it." We may test this text by a common 
sense rule, and learn its meaning, as we may most other 
texts. Suppose the text was not in the Bible ; and 
- suppose further, that the community were divided in 
opinion, some believing that the soul dies with the body, 
and others that it lives in the spirit world after the body 
is dead ] and suppose still further, that a person whose 
opinion was unknown, should address this divided 
community, and should say, Friends, you must all 
die, and then shall the dust return to the earth as it 
was ; and the spirit shall return Unto God who gave it," 
would any one doubt that he took sides with those who 
hold that the soul lives after the body is dead ? No one 
could doubt it ; yea, the language would be offensive, 
under such circumstances, to those who deny that the 
soul lives after the body is dead ; they would feel that 



98 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



the declaration was made against their views. Then 
are we sure that the writer of the text, believed That 
the soul lives after the body is dead. The writer is 
clearly speaking of death, and when it shall take place 
he declares; " then shall the dust return to the earth 
as it was, the spirit shall return unto God who ^ave 
it," which proves that the soul does not return to the 
earth with the body, as clearly as words can prove it. 

Psal. xc. 10, " The days of our years are three- 
score years and ten 3 and, if by reason of strength 
they be four-score years, yet is their strength labor and 
sorrow ; for it is soon cut off and w^e fly away." Our 
argument hangs upon the last clause of this text : We 
flyaway." No man of sense and taste would use 
such language, with reference to death, who believes 
that there is in man no living soul, which continue? to 
live after the body is dead. Suppose the doctrine to 
prevail that when the body dies, the whole man die?, 
and that all there is of the man is laid in the grave, 
would any one, even by any rhetorical flourish, call 
dying, flying away ? Never; the very figure, if it be 
called a figure, is borrowed from the belief that man 
has a soul which departs to the spirit world when the 
body dies ; this belief alone could suggest the idea of 
saying that men fly away when they die. 

Matt. X. 28. "And fear not them which kill the 
body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear 
him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 

Luke xii. 4. 5. " Be not afraid of them that kill the 
body, and after that have no more that they can do ; but 
I forewarn you whom ye shall fear; fear him, which 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 99 

after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell." 
These texts are sufficient to settle the question, if 
put a plain common sense, construction upon the lan- 
guage. The following points are perfectly clear: 

1. The body and soul are not the same. They are 
SDoken of as distinct matters. 

2. Men are capable of killing the body. This re- 
fers to the persecutions which were to come, in which 
they should be put to death. Men did kill their 
bodies. 

3. Men are not able to kill the soul. This is most 
clearly asserted. The first text assess that they "are 
not able to kill the soul," and the second asserts that, 
*' them that kill the body have nothing more that they 
can do which is the same as to assert that they can- 
not kill the soul. 

4. From the above, it follows that the soul does not 
die with the body. If the soul does not live without 
the body, or after the body is dead, then persecutors 
could kill the soul, the very thing which Christ affirmed 
they could not do. If the soul. dies with the body, 
then to kill the body is to kill the soul ; but men can 
kill the body, but cannot kill the soul ; and, therefore, 
the soul does not die with the body. We are certainly 
unable to see how this argument can be answered with 
any show of plausibility. 

• Matt. xvii. 3. " And behold, there appeared unto 
them Moses and Elias talking with him." The force 
of the argument drawn from this text, depends upon 
the circumstance that those who had been long dead, 
appeared on this occasion. ISo far as Elias is concerned, 



100 



IxvIMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



we admit there is little or no force in it, since he was 
translated, and did not die, but so far as Moses .s con- 
cerned, the argument is conclusive. The death of Mo- 
ses is described in Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6. So Moses the 
servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, ac- 
cording to the word of the Lord. And he buried him 
in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth- 
peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this 
day." Moses then died, and was buried, and yet he 
appeared upon the mount, and talked with Christ, 
nearly fifteen hundred years afterwards. To assume, 
as some have, that the soul of Moses died with his 
body, and that he tvas raised again, as nil will be, at 
the resurrection, is without foundation. There is not 
the slightest proof to sustain the assumption. The 
fact, then^ that one whose body is proved to have been 
dead and buried, afterwards appeared and conversed, is 
clear proof that the soul lives afcer the body is dead. 

Matt. xxii. 31, 32. '-But as touching the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, have ye not read that which was 
spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abra- 
ham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? God 
is not the God of the dead, but of the living." See 
also Mark xii. 27, and Exodus iii. 6, from whence 
the quotation is made. We are aware that it will be 
said that this text speaks only of the resurrection of 
the body, and not of the conscious existence of the 
soul while the body is dead. This is not true, the ex- 
pression, God is not the God of the dead, but o; the 
living," clearly refers to the life of the soul after the 
death of the body, because it is applied to those whose 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



101 



bodies were, at the time, dead. The argument may be 
stated thus : God is not the God of the dead, but of the 
livin^: \ but God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Ja- 
cob, and therefore they must be living. But the bodies 
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were dead, and there- 
fore it must have been their souls ^that were living-. 
This certainly is the most rational construction which 
can be put upon the language; and that it is most in 
harmony with the grand design of our Lord, which was 
to refute the Sadducees and establish the doctrine of 
the resurrection, will appear from the following con- 
siderations : 

1. The Sadducees were materialists, and denied the 
existence of spirits, as well as the r3Surrection of the 
body. These two ideas were linked together in their 
views, to stand or fall together. To sweep their theory 
away, Christ included both branches, but more partic- 
ularly the existence of the soul after the death of the 
body, by which he removed their greatest objection to 
the resurrection of the body, and laid the foundation 
for it, by establishing the separate existence of the 
soul. 

2. It was necessary for Christ to establish the sepa- 
rate existence of the soul, as he did, in order to prove 
the resurrection of the body, in a discussion with the 
Sadducees. There can be no resurrection, unless the 
soul maintains its conscious existence during the inte- 
rim, and as the Sadducees denied this, he had to prove 
it to lay the foundation on which to build the resur- 
rection of the body. The identity of man is to be 
looked for in the soul, and not in the matter that com" 



102 



IMMORTALITY f>T THE SOFlw 



poses the body, and the only reliable evidence of 
identity, is our own consciousness ; hence if conscious- 
ness cease at death, upon the principle that the mind 
dies with the body and returns to dust with it, a link 
is broken in the chain of our existence, and the man 
this side of death, can never be joined to the man oe- 
yond the resurrection. The mind ceases to exist upon 
the principle we oppose. When a person die«, if the mind 
is only the brain, or a function of the brain, as an indi- 
vidual once said to the writer, then it dies and ceases to 
exist. There is then no mind after the person is dead. 
The brains may be taken out and the watery part be 
evaporated, and the solid reduced to powder and pre- 
served, or thrown to the winds, but no one would say 
that what had been evaporated and lost amid the world 
of waters is the mind. Nor will any one pretend that 
the powder preserved or throw^n to the winds, is mind, 
or that it approaches to mind, any more tiuan any other 
dust of the same amount, which may be taken from 
the earth anywhere between the poles. There is then 
no mind after the person is dead, and the mind having 
ceased to exist, there c?an be no resurrection of mind ; 
if mind exists again it must be a new mind, a new cre- 
ation, and not a resurrection, and such a being must date 
his existence from such re-proJuction, and can never 
be linked with some other mind that once existed, but 
which ceased to exist. The theory we oppose asserts 
that mind or intelligence is the result of organization, 
and hence, when the organization ceases, the mind 
must cease to exist. Should the same particles of 
matter be organized into a thinking machine, a thou- 



IMMOKTALITY OF THE SOULa 



103 



aand years afterwards, it would not, it could not be the 
fame mind, for identity does not lie in the particles of 
matter, but in the con.«cious mind : and this new mind 
cannot, by memory or consciousness, ally itself to the 
former being which w^as, and which ceased to be, a 
thousand years before. 

Let us take another view of the same point. Some 
of the martyrs were burned to ashes, and the ashes 
were then gathered up and scattered upon the waters of 
the rivers or ocean, so as to prevent a resurrection, as 
the heathen persecutors supposed. Now, upon the 
supposition that the mind is a property of matter, the 
mere result of organization, where is the mind of one 
of those martyrs now. It has no existence, and has 
had none since the hour when the body was burned. 
The fluid of the body that wa5> burned exists somewhere 
in the universe of waters; it may have a thousand 
limes ascended in vapor^ and fallen in dew^ and rain: 
it may have floated in the clouds, it may have flowed 
from the fountain, run in the stream, and mingled in 
the ocean ; it may have formed the sap of trees and 
plants, and it may have been repeatedly drunk by men 
and beasts. So with the solid part of the body that 
was thus burned 3 the ashes may have been washed 
away by ten thousand waters, and blown aw^ay by 
ten thousand winds ; it may have fattened the soil, 
been absorbed in growing plants, and entered into the 
composition of other animal bodies. In this state of 
things the particles of matter are not the mind of the 
person that was burned. Nor are these floating par- 
ticles of matter the body of the martyr that was 



104 



IMMORTALrTT OF THE SOUL , 



burned. The human body is an organism, but these 
particles of matter are not an organism, any more than 
the dew drop that trembles upon the spray, or the dust 
that cleaves to our feet. These particles of matter are 
no more a man, than the dust of the ground out of 
which God formed the body of Adam, was a man, be- 
fore God laid his plastic hand upon that dust. When 
the martyr was burned, the man ceased to be, accord- 
ing to the theory we oppose, and everything pertaining 
to man, which distinguishes him from the common dust 
of earth and the common water of the ocean, ceased to 
be; certainly so, unless his soul lives in the spirit 
world, as we suppose. These facts are so plain, that 
it is folly for any one. Christian or Infidel, to pretend 
to deny them. We insist, then, that there can be no 
resurrection, if the mind does not live after the death of 
the body, to preserve a continuous being, whose con- 
sciousness shall extend back to the commencement of 
being. God can at the end of the world, produce as 
many beings as have been, and as have died, but they 
will not be the san- e beings. As there was no maa^ 
no mind, during the interim between the burning of the 
martyr and this re-production of being, consciousness 
cannot extend back beyond this reproduction, or com- 
mencemement of this new being. To say that con- 
sciousness can extend through these thousands of 
years of non-existence, and identify itself with some 
one that once existed, but which ceased to exist, is to 
aay that the mind can be conscious of time during , 
which it does not itself exist, which is the same as to say 
that nothing can be conscious of something or that 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



105 



something can be conscious of nothingo If the new 
organism be composed of the same particles of matter, 
admitting this to be possible with God, it will not re- 
lieve the difficulty, for conscious identity and respon- 
sibility do not depend upon the presence of the same 
particles of matter, but upon the sameness of mind ; it 
is the mind that constitutes the man, and not the bones 
and fat, and the lean flesh, which are ever varying ; 
and the mind has ceased to be, as has been shown. 
The mind i& not, and cannot be conscious of the pres- 
ence of the same particles of matter at different periods, 
and hence the presence of the same particles of matter 
in the new organism, cannot, through the consciousness 
of the mind, prove identity with some being that once 
existed, and ceased to exist five thousand years ago. 
Nothing is, therefore, gained by supposing the pres- 
ence of the same particles of matter in the resurrection 
body. As identity or personal sameness does not de- 
pend on the presence of the same particles of matter, 
but upon the sameness of mind, there can be no resur- 
rection which will link the post mortem being on to 
the ante mortem being, v/ithout preserving conscious- 
ness during the period that elap-es between death and 
the resurrection. This state of facts rendered it neces- 
sary for Christ to prove that the soul lives after the 
body is dead, in order to refute the Sadducees, which 
he did by showing that God was the God of Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob, who were dead, and then affirmmg 
that he is not the God of the dead but of the living ; 
per-consequence, though the bodies of the patriarchs 
were dead, their souls were alive. This maintenance 



106 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



of conscious being during the intermediate state, 
linked Abraham beyond the resurrection, with Abra- 
ham dwelling in tents and tabernacles with Isaac and 
Jacob, heirs of the same promise, and laid the founda- 
tion for the resurrection, and refuted the Sadducees 
beyond their power to reply. We have elaborated 
this subject at this point, because it is important to the 
general subject, and because it essentially befongs to a 
clear and full exposition of the text under considera- 
tion. We will now sum up our argument based upon 
the text, by stating the following points, which we 
claim to have made plain : 

1. The Sadducees not only denied the resurrection 
of the body, but the existence of spirits, insisting that 
death is the utter extinction of being. 

2. To refute this denial of the resurrection of the 
body, and establish the fact of a future existence, which 
shall involve the responsibilities of this life, the chain 
of consciousness, which is the only sure proof of iden- 
tity, must be maintained unbroken between our present 
and future existence. 

S. To maintain this connecting link of conscious 
identity between our present and future existence, the 
soul or mind must maintain a conscious existence after 
the body is dead, and during the whole period of the 
intermediate state. 

4. To prove this vital point of unbroken conscious- 
ness, connecting our present with our future being, 
Christ quoted the words of Jehovah : ''^ I am the God 
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Ja- 
cob and then added on his own authority : ^ God 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



107 



IS not the God of the dead but of the living per-con* 
sequence, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are living, though 
their bodies are dead, and the only, and irresistible 
conclusion is, that the soul or mind does not die with 
the body, but lives after the body is dead. 

Luke xvi, 22, 23. And it came to pass, that the 
beo:gar died and was carried by angels into Abraham's 
bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried : And 
in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and 
seeth Abraham afar off', and Lazarus in his bosom." 

It is not necessary to discuss the question, whether 
this is a literal narrative, or a parable, as it fully an- 
swers the purpose of our argument in either case. If 
it be a literal narrative, it clearly proves that the soul 
lives after the body is dead. If it be a parable, it must 
still be founded upon the fact that the human soul does 
live after the body is dead, otherwise it would be false 
and deceptive. When a parable has the form of a nar- 
rative, though the narrative may not have transpired, 
it must be what is likely to take place, otherwise it 
will have no force, or it will mislead. This represen- 
tation of the rich man and Lazarus, be it parable or 
fact, clearly inculcates the doctrine that souls live after 
the body is dead. This it does in three particulars. 

1. It represents Lazarus as having a conscious ex- 
istence after he died ; he died, and his soul doubtless 
** was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom." 

2. " The rich man also died, and was buried : And 
in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments." He 
then had a conscious existence after he was dead and 
buried. 



108 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

3. The text represents Abraham also, as alive in the 
spirit world, where good people go when they die. 
This makes a clear case that Christ taught the doctrine 
that death is not the extinction of conscious existence. 
It is worthy of remark, that the word rendered hell in 
this text, is not gehenna, which is used to denote the 
final place of punishment for the wicked, hut hades, 
which denotes the place of separate spirits, good or 
bad, during the intermediate state. 

Luke xxiii. 42, 43. " And he said unto Jesus, Lord, 
remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom I 
And Jesus said unto him, verily I say unto thee, to-day 
shalt thou be with me in paradise." 

Verse 46. " Father, into thy hands I commend my 
spirit : and having said this, he gave up the ghost." 
We consider these two texts together, because we be- 
lieve they have a mutual bearing upon each other. 
This text is as clear a proof of the conscious existence 
of the soul, after the death of the body, as could well 
be furnished in the use of language. A few remarks 
will be sufficient on this plain subject. 

1. It cannot be pretended that Christ labored under 
any mistaken views, as to the prospective condition of 
himself, or that of his petitioner, nor of the state of the 
dead in general. 

2. They were at the time about to die, and both did 
die in a few moments after. 

3. At this moment of death, the petitioner asked to 
be remembered, and Jesus answered, to-day shalt 
thou be with me in paradise." This, under the circum- 
stances, was clearly a promise of being with Christ in 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



109 



paradise after death, and on that same day. This pro- 
mise did not relate to their bodies, for they did not both 
go to the same burial place. And if the soul dies with 
the body, it could not relate to the soul. Paradise, in 
this text, can mean nothing more nor less than a place 
of happiness, and here it necessarily means happiness 
after death. What else can it mean in this connection? 
In the Greek, it signifies a garden, or a place enclosed 
for pleasure, hence, in the Greek version of the Old 
Testament, the Garden of Eden is rendered Paradise. 
But it can mean no literal garden here, for the thief 
was conveyed to no garden, nor can we suppose that 
his petition concerned the disposition to be made of his 
body after he was dead, and hence the promise did not 
relate to the place of his burial, but to the state of his 
soul, which did not die. ^' To-day shalt thou be with 
me in paradise." Here was the promise of being with 
Christ, as well as being in paradise j and having made 
the promise, Christ said, " Father, into thy hands I 
commend my spirit, and gave up the ghost." Christ's 
soul, or ghost, which he commended into the hands of 
his Father and gave up, did not die with his body, and 
hence, it was with it that the thief had the promise 'of 
being in paradise. It must mean, therefore, a place of 
happiness after death. That the New Testament wri- 
ters use the word paradise in the sense of heaven, is 
too plain to be disputed. The word occurs, we believe, 
only three times, including the text under considera- 
tion. The next place is II. Cor. xii. 4. How that 
he was caught up into paradise," &c. In the second 
verse, what is here called paradise, is called " the third 



110 



IjIMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



heaven." This leaves no doubt that the word para 
dise is used in the sense of heaven. The other text in 
which the word occurs, is Rev. ii. 7. " To him that 
overcometb, will I give to eat of the tree of life, v^'hich 
is in the midst of the paradise of God." Here again 
the word paradise is used in the sense of heaven. We 
have, then, a clear case before us; Christ promised the 
dying thief that he should be with him in paradise on 
that same day, but after death ; and as the word signi- 
fies a place of happiness, it is certain that both the 
mind of Christ and the pardoned thief lived after the 

body was dead. 

Acts vii. 59. " And they stoned Stephen, caUmg up- 
on God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." 
There can be no question that Stephen was tinder the 
influence of inspiration at the time he com.mended his 
spirit to Christ, for in the 56th verse he said, " 1 see 
the heavens opened, and the son of man standing on 
the right hand of God." Thus did the martyr, with 
heaven full in view, commend his spirit to Christ, say- 
ing. Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." A clearer proof 
could not be offered of the existence of the spirit after 
the death of the body. Mr. Grew, in a pamphlet in 
which he labors to prove the death sleep of the soul, 
by *' spirit" in this text, understands life, and urges that 
Stephen committed his life to Christ, to be restored at 
the resurrection, and then aflirms that it does not prove 
*' that the life is a distinct substance, susceptible of 
consciousness without the material organization." Such 
reasoning can only prove the weakness of the cau^e it 
is designed to sustain. In the first place, it is a viola- 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



Ill 



tion of common sense, to render the text life instead of 
spirit, in the common meaning of the word life as ap- 
plied to the body ; for if there is no life in man, except 
what belongs to the material organization, and what 
can have no separate existence from the body, there 
was nothing to commend to Christ, nothing for Christ 
to receive. When the body died, life became extinct, 
it was not taken by Christ, nor was it preserved any 
where, it ceased to exist upon Mr. Grew's theory, and 
hence his own theory renders the prayer of Stephen an 
absurdity. How could the martyr say, Lord Jesus re- 
ceive my spirit," if he had no spirit, which did or could 
exist separate from the body 1 The language implies, 
first, an act of reception on the part of Christ, and sec- 

I ondly, something to be received and preserved: but if 
the whole man perishes at death, no act could be re- 
quired at death, on the part of Christ, and there could 
be nothing to receive, either life or' spirit. 

Rom. viii. 35, 38, 39. Who shall separate us from 

j the love of Christ ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or 
persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword 1 
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor 
angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things pre- 
sent, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any 
other creature, shall be able to separate us from the 
love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." The 
simple point in this text is, that death cannot separate 
Christians from the love of God which is in Christ Je- 
sus. This proves, beyond the reach of contradiction, 
that death is not the extinction of conscious existence. 
Love towards God cannot be exercised, neither can the 



112 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



love of God be enjoyed, only by a rational being, pos- 
sessing reason, afi'ections, and consciousness. If, there- 
fore, death be the extinction of the mind, as clearly as 
it is of the organism of the body — if the soul dies, in- 
volving a loss of mental and moral life, as clearly as 
the death of the body involves a loss of animal life, 
death does separate from the love of God, and Paul, 
who perpetuated the declaration, has himself already 
been separated from the love of God for almost two 
thousand years, and righteous Abel has been separated 
from the love of God nearly six thousand years. It 
will avail nothing, to pretend in reply, that the dust of 
the saint may be the subject of Divine love, in some 
sense which will reconcile the apostle's declaration 
with the death-sleep of the soul, for the following rea- 
sons : 

1. " The love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord," of 
which the apostle speaks, is no doubt reciprocal, acting 
upon a rational soul, with affections capable of receiv- 
ing and returning love. But the theory we oppose 
allows of nothing, after death, capable of receiving, or 
enjoying, or returning love. 

2. There is nothing, worthy of the love of God in 
Christ Jesus, remaining of the brightest saint on earth, 
after death, if the soul dies with the body. It is im- 
portant to understand what there is for God to lore af- 
ter death, according to the theory we oppose. We in- 
sist there is nothing, but common earthy water and air, | 
which mingles with the other earth, water and air of 
this creation. The theory denies that man has a soul, 
whi&h is distinct from, and which forms no part of his 



IMMORTALITY C F THE SOUL. 



113 



body ] and, ol course, it assumes that mind is the re- 
sult of organization, and that intelligence is a property 
af matter, a function of the brain. This being the case 
when organization ceases, as it does in decomposi- 
tion, the mind ceases to exist, is annihilated. If it be 
a function of the brain, it must cease to exist at death, 
for the brain has no function aft^r death. As shown 
in remarks upon Matt. x. 28, man ceases to be man at 
death, the body ceases to be, a human body, it is no 
more a human body than any other matter, and the 
mind has no existence. There is nothing for God to 
love more than any dust of the street, or any water of 
the ocean. The love of God must pertain to mental 
and moral qualities, but the theory we oppose allow^s 
of no mental or moral qualities after death, and of 
cuUHse there can be nothing after death, which can be 
the object of the love of God in Christ Jesus, and the 
conclusion is irresistible, that death does separate from 
the love of God. But the apostle affirms that death cannot 
separate us from the love of God, and therefore, death 
does not dissolve our intellectual and moral nature. 

It only remains to apply the words of the apostle, 
and show by what a variety of forms of expression he 
sets forth the main truth upon which ourargument de- 
pends. He enumerates '-tribulation, distress, persecu- 
tion, famine, nakedness, peril and the sword." These 
are only so many forms of death. Famine kills and 
the sword kills, and yet these cannot separate from the 
love of God. He then declares his pursuasion that 
neither lite nor death can separate us from the love of 
God. To this he adds, " angels, principalities and 



114 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOTTL. 



powers," by which he includes the inhabitants or agen- 
cies of both worlds, comprehending what is after death 
as well as what is before death. He then adds, "thiDscs 
present and things to come,-* including all before death, 
and ad after death. He then adds, " nor height nor 
depth,*' by which he includes all space, showing that 
there is no place above or below, in tinie or in eternity, 
which can separate Christians from the love of God. 
And finally, lest some conceivable power, a2:ency or be- 
ing, should be thought not to be included, he says, " nor 
any other creature,'' which includes every possible be- 
ing or agency except God, since everything, but God, 
must be a creature. The argument then is conclusive, 
for as the Christian cannot, by any time, place, agency 
or power, be separated from the love of God which is 
in Christ Jesus our Lord and as to be the object of the 
love of God involves conscious existence, it follows that 
Christian men at least will not lose their conscious ex- 
istence through death or any other means : the mind 
therefore must live after the body is dead. 

n. Cor. V. 1, 6, 8. " For we know, that if our earthly 
house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a 
building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal 
in the heavens. Therefore we are always confident, 
knowing that while we are at home in the body, we 
are absent from the Lord; we are confident, I say, will- 
ing rather to be absent from the body and to be present 
with the Lord.*' The whole of the apostle's reason- 
ing from the first to the ninth verse, appears designed 
to prove and illustrate the future conscious existence 
of the human soul, in a disembodied state ; but the 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



115 



tfiree verses we have quoted, are sufficient to answer 
the purpose of the argument. In these verses the 
apostle sets forth the doctrine in question in several 
different forms. 

1. He asserts the grand fact, that after death we 
have a building, a house ; that is, a home in heaven. 
*' Our earthly house of this tabernacle" means the body, 
for in the sixth verse, dwelling in it is called being ''at 
home in the body.'' By this tabernacle being " dis- 
solved," we can understand nothing more nor lees than 
death. The force of the apostle's languge then, is this, 
when we die, when the body is dissolved in which the 
soul now lives, it will live without the body in heaven. 
Thug does the apostle most clearly teach, that the soul 
does not die with the body. 

2. The apostle asserts the same doctrine, by assert- 
ing that, to be " at home in the body " is to be " absent 
from the Lord." That the apostle enjoyed the pres- 
ence of the Lord, in some sense, cannot be denied ; but 
it came so far short of what he expected when he left 
the body, that he called it absence from the Lord. 
While the earthly tabernacle of the body stood, and he 
was at home in it, it shrined the soul and prevented it 
from entering into that visible and sensible presence of 
the Lord, which it would enjoy when the tabernacle 
should dissolve, and leave the soul unincumbered 
amid the scenes of the spirit world. If the soul dies 
with the body, then to be at home in the body would 
not be absence from the Lord, but the only possible 
means of enjoying any degree of the divine presence. 

3. The apostle more directly and fully asserts the 



116 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



conscious existence of the soul after death, by assert- 
ing, that to be " absent from the body,*' is to be " pres- 
ent with the Lord." This he asserts as a matter of 
choice, as a preferable state, to be absent from the body, 
and be present with the Lord. This language cannot 
be explained on any other principle than that the apos- 
tle believed and taught that when Christians die, they 
enter more fully into the presence ot God than while 
they live. If the doctrine of the death-sleep of the 
soul be true, if death be the extinction of conscious 
existence, there is no such thing as being absent from 
the body about which the apostle talks ; and consider- 
ing the expression figuratively, as denoting death — and 
it can refer to nothing else — being absent from the 
body, is so far from being present with the Lord, that 
it cuts us off from all communion with God, and throws 
us beyond the jurisdiction of his moral government. — 
Paul must have been a strange reasoner to have called 
this being present with the Lord. 

n. Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4. ^' I knew a man in Christ above 
fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, 1 cannot 
tell ) or whether out of the body, I cannot tell : God 
knoweth ;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. 
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out 
of the body, I cannot tell : God knoweth ;) how that 
he was caught up into paradise." 

A few remarks only, will be necessary on this text. 
We believe it is agreed, by common consent, that Paul 
here speaks of himself. Nor can there be any do'ibt 
as to the reality of the vision ; the apostle expresses 
no doubt on this point, but speaks of it as certain 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



117 



But there is a point upon which he has doubts, acid 
that is, whether it was in the body, or out of the body, 
that he was caught up to paradise- Which was the 
fact, he could not tell. From this we learn two im- 
portant facts. 

1. The body and mind are two distinct things. If 
there is no soul, no mind, no conscious existence only 
what is a part of and inseparable from the body, Paul 
must have known that it was in the body, and not out 
of the body, that he was caught up to the third heaven. 

2. We are sure that the soul or mind is capable of 
existing, of going to heaven, and of hearing unspeaka- 
ble words without the body. No one can doubt that 
Paul understood the truth on the subject ; if the soul 
cannot subsist as a rational being, without the body, 
he must have known it ; but he did not know that it 
could not, or he would have known that it was not 
out of the body that he went to paradise and heard what 
he did. If then, Paul anywhere and at any time, taugrht 
that the soul cannot live without the body, he taught 
what he did not know, for if he had known it, he 
would have known that he did not go to heaven Vv-ith- 
out his body. Assuming that Paul did understand the 
truth concerning the soul, as he did not know that the 
soul cannot subsist without the body, he must have 
known that it could, for the one or the other must be 
true. If then, he knew that the soul could sustain a 
conscious existence without the body, this is what he 
taught, so far as he taught anything on the subject, 
and this accounts for the many allusions to the subject 
in bis writings. Those who deny that man has any 



118 



^MORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



mind or soul which can exist without the body, as- 
sume to know more than Paul did, for if they know 
the truth of their doctrine, they know that it was in 
the body, and not out of the body, that Paul was 
caught up to heaven, a thing which he declares he 
could not tell. What a pity some of our modern di- 
vines, with their new doctrines concerning the soul, - 
had not been there to have instructed the apostle, and 
solved his doubt ! 

Eph. i. 10. " That in the dispensation of the ful- 
ness of times, he might gather together in one, all 
things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which 
are in earth : even in him." We are aware that some 
commentators, who are entitled to much consideration, 
understand, by things in heaven and things in earth, Jews 
and Gentiles, but this matters not with those who ad- 
vocate the death-sleep of the soul, as they repudiate all 
those writers who are designated as standard authors. 
If the above view be correct, the text proves nothing 
material to our purpose, but we prefer another expo- 
sition, which also Has its advocates, and which is more 
in accordance with the common use of language, and 
more simple. It is this : the text refers to the accom- 
plishment of the gospel plan, which will end in the 
gathering together of all the saved in Christ, in one tri- 
umphant church or family. This is not yet done, nor 
does the text imply that it is accomplished, or that the 
fulness of time has yet«come. The thing is in process i 
of being accomplished, and when all the saints get ' 
home, after the final judgment, it will be finished. — 
But while the process is yet going on, the parties to be 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



119 



gathered, are those " which are in heaven and which 
are in earth." Those in heaven, denote the saints who 
had lived and died, and whose souls were in heaven ; 
and those on earth, those who. then lived on earth, and 
who might yet live on earth. If this exposition be 
correct, the text proves that the soul goes to inhabit 
the spirit world when the body dies, as clearly as it 
could be proved. We give the text and the exposi- 
tion, because we so understand it, and not because we 
consider it essential to our argument, for there is 
enough without it. It appears analogous to, and is 
strengthened by the text which follows, and concerning 
which there can be no doubt. 

Eph. iii. 15. "Of whom the whole family in 
heaven and earth is named." This clearly makes one 
family of those in heaven and those on earth, and if a 
part of the common family to which we belong, have 
already got to heaven, or have become inhabitants of 
the spirit v/orld, the question is settled, that death is 
not the extinction of conscious existence. 

Phil. i. 21, 23, 24. " For to me to live is Christ, 
and to die is gain. For 1 am in a strait betwixt two, 
having a desire to depart and be with Christ ; which 
is far better : nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more 
needful for you." In this text the apostle assumes, 
that immediately after death he should be with Christ. 
He represents himself as under the influence of two 
conflicting motives, drawing him in diflerent directions, 
or producing different desires. These are, first, a de- 
sire to depart at once and be with Christ, which he 
considered far better for himself, by which death would 



120 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



be rendered gain ] and secondly, a desire to live longet 
in the world, for the sake of the benefit he might be to 
the cKurch, which was needful for them. Between 
these two, he was in a, strait^ which supposes but one 
of the two things in the alternative can be obtained 5 
but if the apostle had believed that the soul dies with 
the body, there could have been no such alternative 
presented to his mind. His choice was between dying 
then and being with Christ, and living longer to serve 
the church ; but if the soul dies with the body, Paul 
is not with Christ yet, and hence there could have 
been no possibility of such a strait as he represents, 
for, in that case, abiding in the flesh for the good of the 
church, could not have delayed the period when he 
should be with Christ, one hour. He could have lived 
and labored a hundred years longer, and then have 
been with Christ just as soon as though he had died 
that moment. There can be no doubt then, that Paul 
really expected to be immediately with Christ vrhen he 
died ] that in proportion as his labors were proLracted 
before death, would the time be put off when he should 
be with Christ, and that as his period of labor was cut 
short by an earlier death, would the period be shortened 
which intervened between him and Christ ; and yet 
this could not have been the case, had he believed that 
the soul died with the body. Mr. Grew says, upon 
this passage : " The apostle does not say, that he ex- 
pected to be with Christ immediately on his departure." 
We reply, the apostle most certainly does say that very 
thing in effect. He says he has " a desire to depart and 
to be with Christ." He has a desire to depart, as a 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



121 



means; to be with Christ, as an end. Now he coulJ not 
have had a desire to depart for the sake of being with 
Christ, unless he expected to be with Christ,'' in con- 
sequence of, or as a result of his departure. Such 
effort to turn aside texts from their natural force and 
meaning, only prove how hard the theory sought to be 
sustained is pressed by them. 

Rev. vi. 9. "I saw under the altar, the souls of 
them that were slain for the word of God, and they 
cried with a loud voice," &c. This text is sufficient 
of itself to prove the conscious existence of the soul 
after the death of the body. There is no way to evade 
the conclusion. The most likely way to be attempted, 
is, by saying that it was only a vision, and therefore 
does not describe literal facts. We admit that it was 
a vision, and this only can make the fact a literal one. 
There is no way in which souls can be seen only by 
some spiritual vision. The writer says at the com- 
mencement : I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." 
And again, he says : " I looked, and behold a door was 
opened in heaven." He then heard a voice saying : 
"come up hither and I will show you things which 
must be hereafter." And adds immediately, " I was in 
the spirit," &c. Here commenced the vision in which 
he saw the souls of the martyrs. If the vision did not 
give him a matter of fact view of the souls of such as 
had been slain, it was a false vision, and none of the 
representations can be relied upon. But the subject is 
perfectly free from the obscurity which hangs over 
most of this book. 



122 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



1. The subject is a plain one, it being well under- 
stood that many had been slain for the word of God. 

2. The vision upon its very face, professes to bring 
John within view of the scenes of the spirit world. 
He saw a door open in heaven, and was called up to 
receive representations of things yet to come. 

3. In this state he '• saw the souls of those who had 
been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony 
of Jesus." After all this, shall w^e be told that the 
martyrs had no souls, which existed separate from 
their bodies, and after their bodies had been devoured 
by wild beasts, or consumed in the fire ? We may be 
so told • we have been * but before we can believe it, 
we must have far less confidence in the teachings of 
the Scriptures than we have at present. No construc- 
tion can be put upon the passage, which will invali- 
date its evidence in support of an intermediate state, 
in which the souls or spirits of those who have died, 
live without their bodies. The vision itself is based 
upon the fact that sou^s exist in a disembodied state. 
Admit the truth of this doctrine, and you may even 
conceive of a vision, for some wise purpose, in which 
such souls are exhibited as representatives or symbols, 
when no real souls are present ] but deny the exist- 
ence of souls, and such a vision becomes false and 
deceptive. The vision was from God, and there can 
be no doubt that John saw something which he calls 
the souls of the martyrs. If there were no real souls 
there, what did he see ? What did God show him, 
which he calls souls, if there are no such things as 
souls ? Does some one say that it was a mere repre- 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



123 



sentatian of souls 1: But what could be a representa- 
tion of souls, if there are no such things as souls? 
What form or figure would represent that which has 
no existence '? There must have been a design in^the 
vision, and as John most clearly saw something which 
he calls souls, if we deny the existence of souls, we 
must suppose that God introduced the mere appearance 
or image of nothing, and that this form of nothing was 
introduced to represent something. Such is the absur- 
dity in which those must be involved, who deny the 
existence of souls in a disembodied state. In every 
instance of symbolical representations found in the 
Scriptures, real existences are employed as symbols, as 
beasts are introduced to represent kings and govern- 
ments, and hence to make a symbolical representation 
of what John saw, we must admit the existence of 
souls in a disembodied state. 

We have now done with this branch of our argu- 
ment, and trust that we have proved that the human 
soul does not die with the body. We might have in- 
troduced a number more texts of the same import as 
those we have quoted, but we deemed it unnecessary ; 
if what we have adduced are not satisfactory, more of 
the same class would not be, for we do not pretend 
that there are anymore to the point than some we have 
quoted. By limiting the number of texts, we have 
been able to indulge more freely in our remarks, and 
trust we have succeeded in making such an applica- 
tion of each text, as will be understood and apprecia- 
ted by the intelligent and candid reader, with whom 
we leave the question to be decided, after reading our 



124 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



arguments, whether the lamp of human intelligence 
goes out in utter darkness in the hour of death, or only 
passes away from this state of heing, where it sees and 
shines " through a glass darkly," to the spirit's hame, 
where they shall meet face to face, see as they are 
seen, and know as they are known. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



125 



CHAPTER III. 

THE WICKED WILL NOT BE ANNIHILATED, OR CEASE TO 
EXIST, AT, NOR SUBSEQENTLY TO, THE GENERAL RE- 
SURRECTION. 

SECTION I. 

An argument founded upon the immateriality of the soul, and its 
conscious existence between death and the resurrection 

We proceed with our argument upon the supposi- 
tion that two points have been proved, viz : first, that 
the soul is an immaterial spirit^ which is not matter, 
and which forms no part of what is usually called the 
body : and, secondly, that it exists without the body 
from death to the resurrection. If these two points 
have not been proved, we have no hope of sustaining 
the present proposition, upon the principle that nothing 
can be proved ; for we have made them as plain and 
certain as we can hope to make any scriptural doctrine. 
To our own mind the doctrine of the fall, the death of 
Christ for the redemption of sinners, the resurrection of 
the body, and a general judgment, cannot be made 
more certain. After the extended arguments that have 
been offered on these points, we will proceed t-o inquire 
into the bearing which they have upon the present 
question. 

1. It follows that the soul is not mortal m its own 
nature, tending to dissolution by the action of the ele- 



126 



IMMORTALITY OT THE SOUL. 



mental laws of its being. The body will, by the ope- 
rations of its own elemental laws, come to maiuritVj 
decay and die : but such cannot be the case with the 
soul, from what has already been proved. If the soul 
be an immaterial spirit it will not grow old, decay and 
die of itself. Again, as it has been proved that the soul 
survives the death of the body, and lives in a separate 
state for thousands of years, the argument is pretty 
conclusive that it will never die, unless God. its Maker, 
withdraw from it his creative and upholding power 
which gave it being. 

2. It follows, from what has been proved, that the 
soul cannot be annihilated by those agencies which de- 
stroy the body, and to which allusion is made in the 
Scriptures, in describing the punishment of the wicked. 
Those who contend that the wicked will be annihilated, 
rely upon those Scriptures to prove the pointy which 
affirm that the wicked shall be burned up, but this can- 
not be their meaning. If the soul is immaterial it can- 
not be burned up by such fire as consumes the body. 
Moreover, some of the martyrs were burned up : that 
is, their bodies were burned to ashes, the ashes scat- 
tered upon the waters, and yet these martyrs were not 
annihilated : their souls still exist, and will continue 
tQ exist in the intermediate state until the general res- 
urrection. This has been proved, and from it it fol- 
lows that the soul cannot be burned up, in the sense of 
ceasing to exist. 

3. From what has been proved, it follows that the 
soul will exist forever, unless it can be shown that God 
will destroy it by some means or some agency of which 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



127 



we have yet no knowledge. The effect of this on the 
main argument is this : it throws the burden of proof, 
on those who deny the immortality of the soul and 
maintain that it will cease to exist after the resurrec- 
tion. We have proved that it is immortal in its own 
nature, that it will never die of itself, and hence that it 
must exist forever^ unless it can be proved that God 
will annihilate it, that is, cause it to cease to exist. 
Here w^e might rest our argument, and call for the proof 
that God will annihilate the wicked, at, or subsequently 
to, the resurrection. The most natural conclusion from 
the premises is, that the soul will exist forever. But 
we w^iil not stop at this point, but will proceed to prove 
by additional arguments, what is so clearly a conse- 
quence of the positions already sustained, after which 
we will review the arguments by which annihilationists 
attempt to support their doctrine. 



SECTION II. 

The Penalty of tlie Law is not Annihilation, but conscious 
suffering. 

The real question at issue. is, what is the penalty of 
the law 1 Or, in other words, what is the punishment 
which the law of God inflicts for sin 1 If we can ob- 
tain the right answer to this question, we shall know 
whether or not the wicked will be annihilated ; for it 
may be presumed that no one will contend for annihi- 
lation, only upon the supposition that the loss of exist- 
ence is the penalty of the law. If annihilation is the 



128 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



penalty which the law inflicts for sin, then those who 
are not saved by Christ will be annihilated ; but if the 
penalty of the law is not annihilation, then it cannot be 
maintained that sinners will be annihilated. What 
then is the penalty of the law It must be one of the 
three following things : 

First, annihilation without conscious suffering ; or, 
secondly, it must be conscious suffering and annihila- 
tion combined, consisting in part of both ; or, thirdly, it 
must be conscious sulfering without annihilation. 

It will not be denied that the penalty of the law 
must be found in one or the other of these proposi- 
tions; we will therefore examine them separately, and 
see if we can determine in which it lies. If it can be 
proved not to be in either of the first or second, it must 
follow that it is contained in the third. 



The Penalty of the Law is not Annihilation without suffering. 

Is annihilation without suffering, or the endurance 
of other evil than the loss of existence, the penalty of 
th3 law, or the punishment due to sin ? We answer 
this in the negative, and render the following reasons 
in support of our answer : 

1. We maintain that the simple loss of existence 
cannot be a penalty or punishment, in the circumstaoces 
of the sinner after the general resurrection. All pun- 
ishment must consist of pain or loss ; but the proposi- 
tion that the penalty of the law is annihilation without 
conscious suffering, excludes the idea of pain, and the 
penalty is made to consist of loss only, the loss of ex- 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



129 



fstenee. This, in the circumstances of the sinner, is 
not, and cannot be a punishment. Punishment is an 
evil, but to have existence taken away is not an evil, 
in the circumstances of the sinner. The punishment 
of loss supposes deprivation of something valuable, but 
existence is not valuable in the circumstances of the 
pinner, and therefore deprivation of existence cannot be 
a punishment. To cease to exist cannot be a punish- 
ment of loss, only so far as the existence taken away 
involves happiness, but the existence of sinners, who 
shall be such after the general resurrection, will not in- 
volve happiness, but misery, and, therefore, to cease to 
exist will not involve a loss of happiness, but an ex- 
emption from suflering, and cannot be a penalty or 
punishment. Would the continued existence of a sin- 
ner, after the general resurrection, be an advantage or 
benefit to him ? Certainly not, unless such existence 
were a happy one ; and hence to deprive him of that 
existence cannot be a punishment, unless it be first 
proved that sinners will be happy after the resurrec- 
tion, and when that is proved no one will contend for 
annihilation. Keeping in mind that God's law threat- 
ens the sinner with evil, that its penalty is a curse, and 
not a blessing, we will state the argument in another 
form. 

The state of sinners after the general resurrection, 
must be a state of prospective happiness or miserj/, if 
they should continue in conscious existenct;. This 
cannot be denied by any one, Oithordox, Universalist, 
Destructionist, or Infidel : conscious existence in a fu- 
ture state implies happiness or misery. If then at the 



130 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



general resurrection, sinners shall be happy, immediate" 
ly or prospectively so, we admit that annihalation 
would he a loss. But there is nothing in the theory of 
the Destructionists on which to base annihilation, 
while its supposed subjects are yet happy, or A-ith- 
in the reach of happiness. Suppose them_ to be hap= 
py, or suppose happiness to be within their reach, 
suppose their circumstances to be those in which thev 
can and will seek and obtain happiness, and suppose it 
to be consistent with the government of God that they 
should thus seek and obtain happiness, upon what 
principle would God annihilate them ? We know of 
none. The developments of the divine administra- 
tion, as well as the declaration of God's word, show 
that he never seals the sinners overthrow, be it misery 
or annihilation^ until he has progressed bej'ond the 
reach of reformation, and rendered hopeless his own res- 
toration to holiness and happiness. Indeed, those who 
contend for annihilation, always place it in opposition 
TO endless conscious suffering, and insist that it is more 
consistent with the benevolence of God to take away 
their existence, than to continue them in existence, 
subject to endless misery. It is then plain that annihi- 
lation is advocated, only in opposition to a misera- 
ble existence; no one contends that God will annihilate 
happy beings, or those whom he can render happy, con- 
sistently with the principles of his government If an-- 
nihilation takes place at all, it will be only in the case of 
those who would otherwise be miserable, and with such 
it cannot be a punishment, and therefcie cannot be the 
penalty of the law, for that is an evil, a curse. Those 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 131 

who contend for annihilation, a.s the only means of re, 
lieving the mind of the horrible conception of atlribu- 
tint? the infliction of endless misery to a benevolent 
Creator^ as all do who advocate the doctrine at all- 
must admit that by annihilation the sinner is saved 
from more misery than he is deprived of happiness j so 
that, as a whole, he is relieved rather than injured by 
it. To contend for annihilation to save God from the 
imputation of inflicting endless misery, and maintaiii 
that it is worse than such supposed endless misery, so 
that it is a loss, a punishment, is too great an absurd- 
ity to be embraced by a sane mind. Annihilation, then, 
cannot be a punishment; it cannot be the penalty of 
ihe law ; for the simple fact that punishment or a pen- 
alty inflicted, involves suffering or loss, but annihilation, 
under the circumstances of tlie case, cannot be a loss, but 
must be a relief. There are but three conceivable states; 
existence with happiness, existence with misery, and no 
existence or annihilation. God will never annihilate 
a happy existence, or an existence which would be 
happy but for such annihilation ; and annihilation, to 
a being who would otherwise exist only in ' misery 
would not be a punishment or loss; and therefore an- 
nihilation cannot be the penalty of the law, the punish- 
ment due to sin ; otherwise the curse of the law, to 
(hose who alone are exposed to it, ceases to be a curse, 
and becames an actual benefit, and the sinner's only 
hope of deliverance from a more dreadful calamity, a 
miserable existence. Take what view we please, an- 
nihilation cannot be the penalty of the law. 
2. To suppose that the penalty of the law is annihi- ' 



132 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



lation without conscious suffering, would not admit of 
any degrees of punishment. There can be no deojrees 
in annihilation; each and all who are annihilated, must 
be punished, if it be called punishment, precisely with 
the same amount or degree of punishment. If the pen- 
alty be annihilation, none can be punished less than 
what amounts to annihilation, and none can be punished 
more than what amounts to annihilation, and annihila- 
tion admits of no degrees. 

Some have sought to avoid this difficulty by making 
the degrees of punishment, consist in the different de- 
grees of loss sustained by different persons, according 
to their respective degrees of capacity to enjoy happi- 
ness. This would have some force in it, did annihila- 
tion stand opposed to a happy existence, but it does 
not, but is urged only in opposition to endless suffering, 
as shown above. Taking this view, as the mind that 
is capable of a larger degree of happiness, must also be 
capable of a greater degree of misery, instead of 
sustaining a greater loss by annihilation, he is only 
saved from a greater amount of suffering. 

It is clear then that there can be no degrees in pun- 
ishment, if it be annihilation without conscious suffer- 
ing, and this must of itself be fatal to the theory. Rea- 
son teaches us that some are greater sinners than others, 
and justly deserve more punishment, and hence if an- 
nihilation be the punishment, some must suffer more 
than they deserve, arid others must suffer less than 
they deserve. Moreover, the Scriptures teach that 
there will be degrees of punishment. Christ said to 
the Scribes and Pharisees, for a certain cause " There- 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



133 



fore shall ye receive the greater damnation." Matt, 
ixiii. 14. 

So he that knows his Master's will and does it not, 
shall be beaten with many stripes, while he that knows 
not his Master's will and does it not, shall be beaten with 
few stripes." See Luke. xii. 47, 48. 

3. That the penalty of the law is not annihilation 
without suffering, is further proved by those Scriptures 
which teach directly that sin is punished by suffering, 
or conscious pain. These constitute a numerous class, 
but we need qujote but a few. 

Matt. XXV. 30. " And cast ye the unprofitable ser- 
vant into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and 
gnashing of teeth." 

Luke xiii. 28. There shall be weeping and gnash- 
ing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, 
and all the prophets in thp kingdom of God, and you 
yourselves thrust out." 

Luke xvi. 23. " And in hell he lifted up his eyes, 
being in torments." 

Rom. ii. 8, 9. " Indignation and wrath, tribulation 
and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil; 
of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile." 

Luke xii. 47. " And that servant which knew his 
Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did ac- 
cording to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.'* 
These texts prove beyond a doubt, that sin is punished 
with positive inflictions, and hence, the penalty of the 
law cannot be annihilation without conscious suffer- 
ing. 



134 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



SECTION III. 

The same subject continued. — The Penalty of ihe La^r iji not 
Annihilation with conscious suffering. 

Is annihilation, with suffering, the penalty of the 
law, or the proper punishment for sin ? We take the 
negative of this question, and assign the following 
reasons in support of our position : 

1. It is liable to the first ohjection urged against the 
former position, that annihilation, under the circum- 
stances, cannot be a punishment. We need not repeat 
the argument further than to show its applicability to 
this point. The object of the annihilationist, in com- 
bining suffering with annihilation, is to escape the two 
objections urged above, viz : first, that annihilation 
without suffering does not admit of degrees, and, se- 
condly, that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of positive 
conscious sufiering eus a punishment for sin. If then 
the law inflicts pain, fitly represented by ^' the worm 
that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched," and 
which produces " weeping and wailing, and gnashing 
of teeth," annihilation must be a relief and cannot be a 
punishment ; it must be an advantage, and cannot be 
an evil under the circumstances. For more ample 
reasoning on this subject the reader is referred to what 
has been said under the head of annihilation without 
suffering ; we only say enough here to show that the 
position under consideration is liable to the objection 
there urged. But this position is subject to additional 
objections not urged against that, some of which shall 
be noticed. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



135 



2. To suppose that the punishment of sin consists of 
suffering in part, and of annihilation in part, renders 
annihilation exceedingly insignificant as a punishment, 
supposing it to be a punishment in any degree. Sup- 
posing it to be, in part, the penalty of the law, it fol- 
lows that it must be inflicted upon all who are punished 
in any degree. We cannot suppose a sinner to be 
half annihilated; hence, he must be absolutely and 
entirely annihilated, if annihilation be any part of the 
penalty of the Divine law. Take the case of two sin- 
ners, one guilty in the least degree that a person 
can be, and still deserve punishment, and the other 
guilty to the greatest extent that a sinner can be, and, 
so far as annihilation is concerned; they must both be 
punished alike. The excess of punishment which the 
greater sinner receives over the less guilty sinner, 
must be made up in actual suffering, and this must 
constitute its principal portion, so that annihilation is 
a mere tittle. One dies so soon as he is capable of 
knowing right from wrong — his first act of sin is his 
only one, and that involves as little guilt as any wrong 
act can, and yet for this he must be annihilated. An- 
other lives to be a hundred years old, and fills up the 
entire period with crimes of the deepest dye, and goes 
to his retribution as guilty as a sinner can make him- 
self in one hundred years, and he can be no more than 
annihilated. It is said that he suffers for his greater 
guilt before he is annihilated. Granted; but as there 
is almost no comparison between his guilt, and that of 
the one less guilty, who is also annihilated, so there 
is almost no comparison between the suffering he must 



136 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



endure, and annihilation ] his suffering constitutes 
nearly the whole of his punishment. In proportion 
to the amount of suffering a sinner has to endure, is 
annihilation rendered less fearful, or rather more to be 
desired ; and the more guilty a sinner renders himself, 
the less does he lose, or the more does he gain by an- 
nihilation ; and the less guilty a sinner is, the more 
does he lose or the less does he gain by annihilation. 
Such absurdities and contradictions are involved by 
supposing the penalty of the Divine law to be com 
posed, part of sufiering, and part of annihilation. The 
penalty of the law is an evil, a curse, and yet this view 
supposes that one part of the curse of the Divine law 
renders the other portion desirable. 

3. To suppose that the punishment of sin consists 
of suffering in part, and of annihilation in part, repre- 
sents the penalty of the Divine law to be indefinite, 
confused and heterogeneous. If annihilation be the 
penalty of the law, even in part, it must be inflicted 
in every case of punishment. As shown above, the 
least of sinners must deserve annihilation, if it be the 
penalty of the law, for less cannot be deserved or 
received in kind, and it must be inflicted on the 
smallest sinner ; otherwise he cannot receive all his 
sins deserve. This being the case, annihilation must 
be threatened in the Scriptures, in every text, where 
any degree of punishment is threatened. If the Scrip- 
tures are true in fact, when they threaten sinners with 
punishment, they threaten just what they deserve, 
both in kind and degree. If then the Scriptures, in 
any case, threaten punishment without threatening 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SODL. 



137 



annihilation, sinners may deserve and receive punish- 
ment for sin without deserving or receiving annihila- 
tion, and the conclusion must be irresistible, that 
annihilation is no part of the penalty of the law. 
What confusion must it introduce, to be compelled to 
understand annihihtion in every denunciation against 
sin. few examples will be sufficient to show the 
absurdity of the thing. 

Matt. viii. 11, 12. " Many shall come from the 
east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and 
with IsaaCj and with Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; 
but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into 
outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing 
of teeth." This text must mean annihilation, if that 
be the final punishment for sinners. And yet every 
one knows that there is not a word in it that suggests 
the thought of annihilation. Nor does it express two 
things, suffering and annihilation, but one thing, being 
cast into outer darkness. This expression cannot 
mean both suffering and annihilation. 

Matt. xxii. 13. Take him away, and cast him into 
outer darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing 
of teeth." This must mean annihilation, if that be 
the final punishment of the wicked, and yet, like the 
former text, it expresses but one thing, and that has no 
relation to annihilation. 

Malt. XXV. 46. " These shaM go away into everlast- 
ing punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." 
Here are two words used to express the entire punish- 
ment of sinners, "everlasting," and "punishment." 
These two words must express the whole penalty of 



138 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



the Divine law, in this instance. Does either of them 
express annihilation by itself ? or do they both together 
express if? Let us see. This is a proper text on 
■which to test this question, as it relates most clearly 
to the final punishment of the wxked. 

(1.) Is the idea of annihilat. on, or non-existence, 
contained in the word " punishment 1" As an Enghsh 
word it certainly does not mean annihilation. Dr. 
Webster defines it thus: Any pain or suffering in- 
flicted on a person for a crime or ofience, by the au- 
thority to which the offender is subject, either by the 
constitution of God or of civil society." This settles 
it so far as this word is concerned. But Dr. Webster 
derives it from the verb, to punish, and this he defines, 
"to pain, to afflict with pain, loss or calamity, for a 
crime or fault. To chastise. To reward with pain or 
suffering inflicted on the offender." There is then 
nothing in the English word punishment, to denote 
annihilation or loss of existence. "To afflict with 
loss," does not imply the loss of existence, but the loss 
of possession or privilege. A person annihilated, 
would not, in any proper sense, lose his possessions, 
but his possessions would lose him. The very idea of 
loss supposes the existence of the loser. Suppose a 
person to possess much property, wife, children, 
friends, and everything that can make a man happy, 
but he meets the fate of all men; he dies. And in 
reporting his death, will you say that the man has lost 
his property, his wife, children, and all his friends 'f 
Surely not ; the term loss, is applied only to those 
who survive; they have lost him who is now dead. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



139 



Let us then look at the Greek word which is here 
rendered punishment, and see if that conveys the idea 
of annihilation. The Greek word here used is kolasin^ 
and is defined thus : " Punishment ; chastisement, tor- 
ture, the rack; a punishing or infliction of punish- 
ment; a check, restraint, hinderance; pruning, lopping.'* 
(See Grove's Greek and English Dictionary.) Here it 
is seen that the word has no signification which indi- 
cates annihilation or loss of existence. 

(2.) Is the idea of annihilation or non-existence 
found in the word " everlasting T" This cannot be, 
for more reasons than one. First, the word expresses 
perpetual duration ; hence, it proves the endless exist- 
ence of whatever it is applied to, rather than its anni- 
hilation or non-existence. Secondly, the same word 
is applied to the life of the righteous in the same verse, 
rendered, eternal. The word in the original is aionion 
in both cases. " These shall go away into [kolasin 
aionion,] everlasting punishment, but the righteous 
into [zoen aionion,] eternal .life." Everlasting, and 
eternal, then mean the same thing in this text, and 
hence, if the word everlasting, as applied to the pun- 
ishment of the wicked, contains the idea of annihila- 
tion, the same word applied to the righteous would 
make an end of their hope. Thirdly, if the punish- 
ment be annihilation, then the word everlasting, ap- 
plied to it, cannot express annihilation. If the punish- 
ment is merely ceasing to exist, it is necessarily ever- 
lasting, for when a being has ceased to exist, is not, 
such state of non-existence is necessarily endless, 
unless existence can spring from non-existence; and 



140 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



hence, to apply the word everlasting to non-existence 
is to talk of everlasting nothing ; for there is nought 
but nothing to be everlasting after annihilation. We 
see then that the word everlasting does not express 
annihilation. 

(3.) Do the words " everlasting" and " pun'isnment,'» 
associated as in the text, express annihilation 1 Cer- 
tainly they do not, and cannot. Keep in mind, that 
*^ everlasting punishment," in this text, expresses the 
entire penalty of the law, involving all the punishment 
that sinners will ever receive under the Divine govern- 
ment. The word everlasting is an adjective, and pun- 
ishment is a noun, and the adjective expresses nothing 
concerning the nature or quality of the punishment, 
more than its simple duration. It simply determines 
that the punishment will be everlasting in point of 
duration, whatever it be in kind and degree. We have 
seen that the word punishment does not express anni- 
hilation, but only the idea of suffering of some sort, 
and the addition of the word everlasting, cannot add 
the idea of annihilation, but only the idea of the 
perpetuity of the suffering previously expressed. 

But we are proving that the penalty of the law can- 
not consist of suffering and annihilation, in part of 
each, and we have reached a point where we may 
clinch the argument. Everlasting punishment here 
expresses the whole penalty of the law, the entire 
punishment inflicted for sin; and if punishment in- 
cludes suffering and annihilation, then the word ever- 
lasting, being applied to the punishment, must qualify 
the suffering as much as it does the annihilation, and 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



141 



the suffering is affirmed to be everlasting just as clearly 
as is the annihilation. Thus is God's law made to 
contradict itself, by threatening sinners with a complex 
penalty, the parts of which are made to contradict each 
other. The argument of annihilationists is, that the 
punishment of the wicked is made up of suffering and 
annihilation, and that it takes both the suffering and 
the annihilation to constitute the entire desert of sin- 
ners; and we have shown that if it be so, the suffering 
must constitute far the largest portion of the sum total, 
as the punishment for all sin beyond the smallest of- 
fence must consist of suffering, since the smallest 
offence involves annihilation, if it be the penalty of 
the law in part or in whole. Now, this punishment; 
not this annihilation, but the punishment, the greater 
part of which is suffering, is declared to be everlasting, 
which involves an absolute contradiction and impossi- 
bility. We therefore conclude that the penalty does 
not consist of suffering and annihilation, in part of 
each, and insist that our proposition is sustained, that 
to suppose the punishment to consist of suffering and 
annihilation, each making up a part of the punish- 
ment, represents the penalty of the law of God to be 
indefinite, confused, and heterogeneous. It makes 
the single word, punish," express two things at the 
same time, which are entirely dissimilar in nature, 
and makes the penalty of the law to consist of two 
things, which have no affinity in nature, which cannot 
exist together, insomuch that the very presence of 
the one involves the absence of the other. This is 



142 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



certainly making confusion confounded out of the pen- 
alty of the Divine law 

(4.) To maintain that the curse of the law, or the 
proper punishment of sin is both suffering and annihi- 
lation, is to suppose that ail the rigbteous suffer the 
penalty of the law once, and that the wicked endure 
it twice. The theory we oppose maintains that man 
has but one element in his nature, which is matter * 
that he has no spiritual nature or soul, which forms 
no part of his material organization, that when he dies 
the whole man ceases to exist, in the same sense, and 
to the full extent which we know the body ceases to 
exist when it dies, and decomposes or is burned up. 
This is what we call annihilation, it is an entire dis- 
solution of being, a ceasing to exist, a loss of existence. 
According to this theory, Adam, Abel, Moses, Aaron, 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not ; they are now in a 
state of non-existence as much as the wicked ever 
will be, and some of them have been so nearly six 
thousand years, and all from the date of their departure 
out of this world. This loss of existence they insist 
is the punishment of sin; all the dead therefore have 
suffered the penalty of the law. once, in as much as 
they have once died which is a dissolution of their 
being, a loss of their existence. 

But they have not only lost their existence, but have 
also suffered all that is necessary to accomplish the dis- 
solution of being, and have endured all the suffering 
and tortures that humanity can endure without being 
dissolved. If this loss ot being then is the penalty of 
the law, as is maintained by the theory we oppose, all, 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



143 



&aints and sinners, who are dead, have suffered the full 
penalty of the law once. 

But the theory we oppose insists that at the resurrec- 
tion, God will recall all these from their state of non- 
existence, and cause them once more to exist ; that he 
will then render the righteous immortal, and again take 
away the existence of the wicked ; burn them up, root 
and branch, so that they shall have no existence, more 
than they had before the resurrection. Thus do the 
wicked endure the penalty of the law twice, and many 
of them in the same way. The people of Sodom were 
burned up in the days of Abraham and Lot, and accord- 
ing to this theory, they are to be brought into existence 
tl>at they may be burned up again. Much is said and 
written in these days, against capital punishment, but 
this theory represents God in the attitude that govern- 
ment would be in, should it, having the power so to 
do, hang men, and then bring them to life for the sake 
of the privilege of hanging them again. 



SECTION IV 

The same subject Continued.— The argument Concluded. 

To maintain that the penalty of the law or proper 
punishment of sin is both suffering and annihilation, 
consisting in part of each, must either fritter away the 
penalty of the divine law to the mere panga of a common 
death, a moment's pain, or represent God unnecessarily 



144 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL^ 



severe ana cruej, and as punishing for the sake of pus- 
ishing. If loss of existence be the penalty of the law, 
then does reason say it involves only so much su*i?ering 
as is necessary to dissolve our bem^. It may be pre- 
sumed, that if God annihilates, or takes away the exis- 
tence of the wicked as a punishment for their sin. he 
will have some uniform method of executing the sen 
tence. This is believed to be by fire. All who bold 
that the wicked will cease to exist, insist that God will 
burn them up. Admitting this, the portion of suffering 
must be so much, and should be only so much as a per- 
son endures while he is burning to death. UndeF- 
stand— the theory we oppose, holds that the wicked wiil 
not be raised immortal, with undecaying natures, but 
that they will be raised as they now are, mortal, sub- 
ject to the action of fire. As they have no souls or 
spiritual .nature here, so they will have none in the re- 
surrection; as they, are nothing but organized matter 
before death, so they will be nothing but organized 
matter in the resurrection, and like all matter may be 
burned up in tue common sense. Admitting then that 
they are to be burned up, it is not possible to see how 
they can suffer more than an ordinary death by fire. 
The pains of bell, according to this view are less than 
many good people have endured in this life, for they have 
been roasted by a slow fire, which did not burn them 
up as quick as the fire of the last judgment will, when 
the heavens shall be on fire and the elements melt with 
fervent heat. Some have had their flesh picked from 
their limbs in small pieces with hot pincers, which 
must cause more pain than to be burned up in a very 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



145 



hot fire. All this follows from the frailty of our being, 
on the supposition that sinners are to be raised as we 
now are, a material organism, subject to the action of 
fire and death ; and unless sinners are thus raised, fire 
will not burn them up, and the argument is at an end. 
A material organism like the human body can endure 
but a limited amount of heat and pain without dissolv- 
ing, and that amount must fix a limit to the pains of hell. 
Thus is the penalty of the divine law frittered away to 
even less than many of the martyrs endured in this 
world. 

To escape this aspect of the subject, our annihila- 
tionists insist that the suffering of the wicked will be 
long and fearfully great before they cease to exist. 
This we insist is not possible, unless God in the resur- 
rection should constitute man a different being from 
what he is in this world, so as to require the action of 
five, ten, fifty, a hundred, five-hundred, or a thousand 
years to burn him up. To say the least of this, it is 
without proof. There is not the slightest evidence or 
shadow of proof, upon the supposition that mar. has no 
spiritual nature, and that he is to be raised mortal, ca- 
pable of being burned up. Upon this principle, this 
semi-immortal nature which is to resist the action of 
fire for a thousand years, or for one whole year, is a 
mere chimera of the brain. But we are not prepared ^ 
to say that God cannot produce an organization, just 
such as this theory supposes, or that he could not sus- 
pend the laws of nature, so as, by his power, to hold 
a sinner in existence with his present organization, un- 
der the tortures of fire for a thousand years, but very 



146 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



stiong considerations go to show that he will not do 
it. 

1 We can see no important end to he secured hy 
it. It is certainly not to dispose of the sinner, and 
place him beyond the power of further depredations 
upon God's moral government ; for as it is insisted 
that death is the extinction of being, he is already dis- 
posed of, and God has only to let him be in his non- 
existence, and he will be harmless forever. Why 
should God raise the sinner that he may torture him for 
a time, and then send him back into non-existence ? 

2. It represents suffering as expiating guilt, which 
must do away the necessity of annihilation. If God 
be not cruel, and inflict suflering for its own sake, why 
does he not leave the sinner in non-existence, or, 
having raised him, why does he not annihilate him at 
once, without first causing him to pass through a long 
and dreadful age of suffering ? The only valid reason 
that can be given, is, that justice demands that the sin- 
ner should suffer so much, according to the degree of 
his guilt, before God can send him into non-existence. 
This implies that the suffering expiates the sinners 
guilt, otherwise justice will always require him to re- 
main under the same degree of suffering. If when the 
sinner has suffered a hundred years, he is just as guilty 
as he was when he commenced, he deserves just as 
much punishment as he did at the commencement, and 
he is no nearer the point when justice can allow of his 
annihilation, if it cannot allow of it at once. If the sin- 
ner is at the commencement so guilty that it would be 
unjust to annihilate him^ then if he remains just so 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL 



147 



guilty, it will always remain unjust to annihilate him ; 
and he must always remain just so guilty, unless his 
sufferings expiate his guilt, rendering him less guilty 
as he continues to suffer. But if suffering does ex- 
piate the sinner's guilty rendering him less deserving of 
punishment as he suffers, when he has reached a point 
where it becomes jusl to annihilate him, God might, by 
causing him to suffer a little longer, expiate the remain- 
der of his guilt, and render his annihilation unnecessary. 
If suffering does not remove the sinner's guilt, God 
could dispense with it by annihilating him at once, and 
inflicts unnecessary tortures 3 and if it does remove the 
sinner's guilt, a little more of it could remove the whole 
of it, and God is represented as unnecessarily taking 
away his existence. The annihilationist may take 
which horn of the dilemma he pleases, either wiil gore 
his theory to death. 

3. To suppose God to give to sinners an organiza- 
tion capable of enduring a thousand times as much 
suffering as his present organization, or that he will 
support, by his direct power, the sinners present organ- 
ization, for the express purpose of having him endure 
a thousand times as much suffering as he could other- 
wise bear, will overthrow the entire foundation on 
which annihilationists build their theory. As has been 
seen in preceding arguments, they always urge their 
theory in opposition to endless suff*ering, and insist that 
it is the only theory which will carry them clear of 
this terrible doctrine. Bat here God is represented as 
supporting man's frail organization for the purpose of 
causing it to suffer a thousand times more anguish than 



348 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL* 



il could otherwise endure, before he will allow the sin- 
ner Ihe relief of annihilation. This suffj^ring must be 
inflicted on the part of God, from a love oi inflicting 
suflering, or from some necessity found in the princi- 
ples of the divine government. If it be from the love 
of suffering, no one can infer from the divine goodness 
that endless suffering will not be most in aci^ordance 
with the divine nature. If it be from some necessity 
found in the principles of the divine government ; if 
there be a necessity with the divine government, for 
holding sinners in existence a long time, for the ex- 
press purpose of causino^ them to suffer before annihi- 
lating them, no one can prove that the same necessity 
does not exist for endless suflering. Thus is the de- 
structionist, by the carrying out of his own theory, 
robbed of all the support he attempts to derive from the 
horrors of endless punishment, and its supposed incon- 
sistency with the divine benevolence. His own theory 
makes God cruel, or else it lays him under the necessity 
of inflicting long and terrible suffering; and if God is 
under a necessity of inflicting a thousand years' suffer- 
ing, the same necessity may require him to inflict it 
longer, ad infinitum. We trust we have now proved, 
by a great variety of arguments, each of which is con- 
clusive in itself; that the penalty of the law does not 
consist of suflering and annihilation, and v;e will close 
the general argument on this point just where we are. 

The proposition is, that the penalty of the jaw, or 
the proper punishment of sin, must be annihilation 
without suffering ; suffering and annihilation consist- 
ing in part of both ] or it mubt be suffering, of some 



IMMORTAUry OF THE SOUL, 



149 



kind and degree, without annihilation. But it has 
been proved, 

1. That the penalty of the law is not annihilation 
without suffering*. 

2. That it is not suffering and annihilation, consist- 
ing of both in part ; and, therefore, 

3. It follows that it must consist of suffering, of 
some kind and degree, without annihilation : and that 
sinners will never be annihilated, or cease to exist. 



SECTION V 

An argument from those Scriptures wnich in various ways, repre- 
sent the punishment of sinners as consisting in actual suffering, 
and not in annihilation or loss of conscious existence. 

The texts of Scripture to be introduced in this ar- 
gument are numerous and various, and for the sake of 
greater clearness and brevity, we will classify them, 
ana introduce only a few of each class. 

1. The Scriptures employ terms to describe the pun- 
ishment of sinners, which express the idea of suffer- 
ing, pain and anguish. Mark ix. 43, 44. It is better 
for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two 
hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be 
quenched : where their worm dieth not, and the fire is 
not quenched." This text clearly implies positive suf- 
fenng. By the worm that dieth not, may be meant the 
gnawing of a guilty conscience, that painful, perpet- 
ual remorse, which sinners will experience, v/ben they 



150 



HVTMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



see and feel the full enormity of their sin and guilt, in 
their alienation from God and iheir exclusion from the 
society of the good and happy. The expression " en- 
ter into life," confirms the idea of positive suffering, for 
this denotes more than continued existence. They are 
already in possession of life, in the sense of mere ex- 
istence, and hence, if mere continued existence be 
meant, they do not " enter into life," but remain in life, 
or life remains in them. It is clear then that by enter- 
ing into life, must be meant, being admitted to the joys 
of heaven : and, hence, to " go into hell," must mean 
entering upon the sufferings of hell. The expression 
*' go into hell," implies a place, and an actual going 
ii.to that place, which does not express annihilation 
but continued existence. A being, on ceasing to exist, 
goes nowhere, he is nowhere. But the strong point 
in the text, is the expression, " their worm dieth not." 
If this means remorse of conscience, as it Undoubtedly 
does, it proves that consciousness will never become 
extinct, and annihilation cannot take place, for that 
would be the death of the worm that dieth not. 

Luke xvi. 19, 31. There was a certain rich man," 
&c. This whole subject proceeds upon the principle, 
that conscious suffering and not annihilation, is the por- 
tion of sinners in the future world. The rich man was 
in " torment," which implies conscious suffering. He 
saw Abraham and Lazarus, and was told they could 
not pass from one place to the other, but there is not 
the slightest intimation that the rich man was in the 
process of annihilation, or likely even to be annihilated. 

Rev. xxii, 14, 15. " Blessed are they that do his corii- 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



151 



Hiandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, 
and may enter in through the gates into the city. For 
without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, 
and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and 
maketh a lie." Here the punishment of the wicked is 
made to consist of exclusion from heaven, and of the 
miseries of the terrible association of evil doers which 
the excluded will constitute. There is not the slight- 
est allusion to annihilation. 

Rev, xiv. 11. " The smoke of their torment ascend- 
eth up forever and ever." We need not inquire 
whether or not this text strictly relates to the final des- 
tiny of sinners' it is not important to the argument; 
for if it does not, the representation is so clearly borrow- 
ed from it, it indicates what it will be. The point is, 
that the most terrible feature of punishment is the du- 
ration of torment, Vvhich necessarily implies conscious 
suffering, and not annihilation. 

Rev. XX. 10. " Shall be tormented day and night for- 
ever and ever." This clearly teaches the doctrine of 
conscious suffering. If it be supposed that it is the 
devils, and not men, that are the subjects of this tor- 
ment, it will be observed that it is in the same place 
where the beasts and the false prophets are, and these 
are men. By the beasts we understand, certain kings 
and rulers. 

2. The Scriptures lay great stress upon the duration 
of the suffering, which constitutes the punishment of 
sinners. This point has been involved in several other 
positions, but it is proper to make it distinct and promi- 
nent in this place. Matt, xviii, 8. ''To be cast into 



152 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



ererlasting fire." Chap. xxv. 46. " These shall go 
away into everlasting punishment." Verse 41. De- 
part ye cursed into everlasting fire." 2 Thes. i. 9. 

Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." 
Rev. xiv. 11. " The smoke of their torment ascendeth 
up forever." Chap. xx. 10. " Tormented forever and 
ever." In this argument we rely wholly upon the du- 
ration of the suffering, and not on the fact that con- 
scious pain is expressed, as in the argument above. If 
annihilation were the punishment, its terror would de- 
pend upon its being an utter extinction of being, but 
it is made here to depend upon its duration, to express 
which, the strongest terms are employed which lan- 
guage furnishes. These terms are applied directly to 
the suffering. It is everlasting fire into which they are 
to go. But it may be said that the fire can be everlast- 
ing, and the sinner who is cast into it be very soon 
burned up. True, this might be the case, but is there 
anything more alarming in being burned up in evelast- 
ing fire, than in fire that will burn only long enough to 
consume us ^ Everlasting fire was doubtless designed 
to express the terribleness of the punishment, and yet 
it adds nothing to it, if it only burns up in the sense of 
terminating conscious existence, and Christ has failed 
to express what he obviously intended to. No matter 
how long the fire burns after the sinner ceases to 
exist^ it adds nothing that need alarm him, or that can 
make his punishment worse. The punishment is ever- 
lasting, consisting in one case of everlasting destruc- 
tion. We know that this word, destruction, is relied 
upon to prove annihilation, but this shall be met in 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



153 



another place, and fully considered. It is sufficient to 
say in this place that it cannot mean annihilation, from 
the simple fact that everlasting could not be applied as 
a qualification to annihilation with any good sense.— 
Moreover the destruction is a punishment^ and this pun- 
ishment is everlasting 5 v^hereas annihilation is an non- 
entity, and has no existence ] or it is the act of redu- 
cing to the state of non-existence, and that cannot be 
everlasting, hence the punishment, which is called de- 
struction, must have a positive existence, and cannot 
be annihilation. 

3. The Scriptures describe the terrible nature of the 
punishment which the wicked will endure, in a manner 
which clearly proves it to be conscious suflering, and 
not merely ceasing to think and feel. Romans i. 18. 
"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against 
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.*' Rom. 
ii. 8, 9. " Indignation and wrath, tribulation and an- 
guish upon every soul of man that doeth evil." Heb 
X. 28—31. " He that despised Moses' law died with 
out mercy, under two or three witnesses : Of how 
much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought 
worthy of, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, 
and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherev/ith 
he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done de- 
spite unto the Spirit of Grace For we know him who 
hath said, vengeance belongeth unto me, I will repay 
• it saith the Lord. It is a fearful thing to fall into 
the hands of the living God." This whole exhibition 
of the impending wrath of God, impresses the mind 
^ithanideaof punishment more awful than death; 



154 



IM:iIORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



more terrible tnan lo be slain by the sword, or to be 
conswned in the fire ; more apallino; than ceasing to 
think and feel. But it is said that those who reject 
Christ are worthy of a sorer punishment than those 
who died without mercy under the law of Moses. The 
expression," how much sorer punishment,*- denotes a 
punishment vastly more severe. But that amounted to 
all the terrors of annihilation, according to the theory' 
we oppose, hence this must be more terrible than an- 
nihilation, and that which is worse than annihilation 
cannot be ac nihil ation. 

4. The Scriptures associate the punishment of sin- 
ners with the existence and punishment of devils, in a 
manner which proves punishment to be suSering and 
not annihilation. That devils are disembodied spirits 
and inhabitants of the invisible world, we will not un- 
dertake to prove in this place ; it is so clearly taught 
in Scriptures, that probably none with whom we have 
to deal on this subject will deny it. They are believed 
to be fallen angels, and to have fallen before this world 
had an existence, and still to exist bound to tiie j aug- 
ment of the great day. 2 Peter, ii. 4. For if God 
spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down 
to hell, and delivered them in the chains of darkness to 
be reserved unto judgment.*' Jude 6. And the an- 
gels which kept not their first estate, but left their own 
habitation, he bath reserved in everlasting chains, un- 
der darkness unto the judgment of the great day." 
These texts prove the fact of fallen angels. How 
many of them there are we know not. but that there is 
a chief as leader, who is often called the devil, is 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SODL* 



155 



certain. Matt. ix. 34. "The prince of the devils.'* 
Chap. xii. 24. " Beelzebub the prince of the devils.'^ 
Chap. XXV. 4L " The devil and his angels.'* 

That the devils are in misery and await with fear a 
judgment to come and greater punishment, is also plain. 
Matt. viii. 29. "They [the devils] cried out, saying, 
what have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou iSon of 
God, art thoU come to torment us before the time 
Mark, v. 7. " I adjure thee that thou torment me not.'' 
Luke, viii. 28. "I beseech thee torment me not."—* 
These texts prove that the devils are subjects of pnn« 
ishment, and are looking forward to a time of punish-* 
ment, being " reserved unto judgment." The time 
referred to is the judgment day, when all will stand at 
the bar 

•* Nor man alone ; the foe of God and man 
From his dark den, blaspheming, drags his chaiOy 
And rears his brazen front with thunder scarr'dj 
Receives his sentence and begins his hell. 
All vengeance past now seems abundant gracej 
Like meteors in a stormy sky, how roll 
His baleful eyes ! He curses whom he fears; 
And deems it the first moment of his falL^' 

That the punishment of sinners is associated with the 
punishment of devils, is also very clearly taught in the 
Scriptures. Matt. xxv. 41. Depart from me ye 
cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and 
his angels." I. Tim. iii. 6. Lest being lifted up, he 
fall into the condemnation of the devil." Rev. xx» 
10, 15. The devil that deceived them was cast into 
the lake of fire, where the beasts and the false prophets 
are, and shall be tormented day and night, forever and 
ever. And whosoever was not found written in the 
book of life was cast into the lake of fire." 



156 



3MM0RTALITY OF THE SOUL* 



The above texts prove, as clearly as anything can be 
proved in the use of words, that sinners and devils 
will receive their punishment together. They are 
clearly associated in point of time, place, and the kind 
of punishment they will endure ; in degree there will 
be variations. Will it then be pretended that the devils 
are to be annihilated ? Unless it be so contended, the 
doctrine of the annihilation of sinners falls to the 
ground. But v/here is the proof? The devils have 
survived, we cannot tell how many thousand years, 
since they sinned and were cast down to hell, and there 
is no proof that they will ever cease to exist. This 
strongly indicates that it is no part of the economy of 
God to annihilate the moral agencies he has created, 
but only to punish them according to the magnitude of 
the offences they commit. 

There is one text w^hich may be quoted to prove that 
the devils will be annihilated, and it is proper to notice 
it in this place. Heb. ii. 14, 15. " That through 
death he might destroy him that had the power of 
death ; that is the devil^ and deliver them who through 
fear of death were all their life-time subject to bond- 
age." The stress must be laid upon the word, destroy, 
to prove from this text that the devils will be annihi- 
lated. We design to examine this word more thorough- 
ly in another place, but will remark here, that whatever 
its meaning may be elsewhere, it cannot mean annihi- 
lation in this text. The process oi proving this is very 
simple. The destruction of the devil, in the sense of 
this text, is represented as necessary in order to the 
deliverance of those who through fear of death were 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL 



157 



Bubject to bondage ; and hence, the destruction must 
take place before the deliverance can be effected. But 
Christ has already delivered thousands from this bond- 
age through fear of death. Rom. viii. 15. " For ye 
have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear ; 
but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby 
we cry Abba, Father." Verses 38, 39. " For I am 
persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor 
principalities, nor powers, shall be able to separate us 
from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our 
Lord." See also, Gal. iv. 3—7. 

Christ has then already delivered his people from 
bondage through fear of death, and of course he has 
already destroyed the devil, in the sense of the text, for 
that was the means leading to the end. But it will 
not be pretended that the devil has been annihilated, 
and hence it is certain that destruction, in this instance, 
at least, does not mean annihilation. Dr. Macknight 
translates the text thus : " That through death he 
might render ineffectual him who had the power of 
death, that is, the devil." The meaning undoubtedly 
is, that he might so counteract the influence of the 
devil, or take away his power, as to deliver those who 
were subject to bondage. The same idea is expressed 
in Acts xxvi. 18. ''To turn them from darkness to 
light, and from the power of Satan unto God>" When 
any sinner is turned " from the power of Satan unto 
God, he is delivered from bondage through fear of 
death. 

We will conclude this argument by remarking that 
the punishment of sinners, is associated with the pun- 



158 



mMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



ishment of devils, in point of time, place, nature and 
duration ; and that there is no proof that the devil will 
ever cease to exist, that the whole weight of proof isoa 
the other side of the question ; they having survived 
ages on ages, as inhabitants of the spirit world, where 
death, in the sense of dissolution, has never been known 
to invade, and the conclusion is very certain that sinners 
are not to be annihilated. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



159 



CHAPTEE lY. 

OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ANSWERED. 
SECTION I. 

An answer to the objection that our theory of the human mind, 
and our method of proving its immateriality from its own phe- 
nomena, will prove that brutes have immaterial souls. 

We have argued that the human mind is an imma- 
terial spirit, from its intellectual and moral develop 
ments, such as reason, will, memory, affections and de- 
sires. These arguments are contained in the first part 
of this investigation, and need not be repeated here. 
To these arguments it has been objected that if they 
are sound, they prove with equal force that brutes have 
immaterial souls. To the objection we offer the fol- 
lowing reply : 

I. If the objection be well founde d, it does not 
prove our arguments unsound. We shall not deny our- 
self a soul lest we should give one to our faithful dog. 
We shall not reason our own soul out of existence 
lest we should reason one into a brute. We would 
sooner embrace a theory which would elevate brutes 
to men, by giving them souls, than one which would 
degrade m.en to brutes, by taking away their souls. Is 
there anything more frightful in supposing that men 
and brutes are so far alike as to both have souls, than 
there is in supposing that they are so far alike as 
neither to have souls The objector appears alarmed 



160 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOaL, 



at the idea that a horse should be so much like a man 
as to have a soul ; and yet he contends that a man is 
so precisely like a horse, as not to have a soul. We 
would rather a horse should have a soul, than not to 
have one ourself. The arguments in question, prove to 
our entire satisfaction, the immateriality of the human 
soul, and if any one can prove from them that beasts 
have souls, we shall not do violence to the reason 
which God has given us to escape the consequences. 
But we cannot see that any such consequences follow 
from our arguments ; we believe our arguments prove 
the immateriality of the human mind, without proving 
that beasts have souls, like the souls of men, yet did 
the <ionclusion follow, we should not shrink from the 
consequences. Some eminent divines have held that 
brutes will have a future existence, but we differ from 
them, and trust we shall prove before we get through, 
that the doctrine does not follow from our arguments. 

II. The objection, if admitted, would involve the 
objector in precisely the same difficulty, in relation to 
his own theory, which he charges upon us, in view of 
our theory. We suppose his objection to allowing 
that beasts have souls, ivS, that it would give them a re- 
lation to the spirit world, and a future existence. This 
we charge back upon himself ; for whether you raise 
brutes to a level with men, by giving them souls, or 
degrade men to a level with brutes, by denying that j 
they have souls, the result, in this particular, is the j 
same, as it is admitted on both sides that men do sus- ] 
tain a relation to the future world. Let ic be noted 
that the objection is not founded upun a depial of the 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL* 



161 



powers and susceptibilities of the human mind, upon 
which we have founded our arguments, but upon the 
aasumption that brutes possess the same powers and 
susceptibilities, or that they exhibit the same mental 
phenomena. If brutes do not exhibit the same mental 
phenomena as that upon which we have based our ar- 
guments, then the arguments can prove nothing con- 
cerning brutes, and the objection falls to the ground. 
If beasts do exhibit the same mental phenomena, then 
they must possess the same intellectual and moral cha- 
racter, sustain the same relation to God's moral govern- 
ment, and be equally entitled to a resurrection and a 
future existence. The objector may take which horn 
of the dilemma. he pleases 3 if he takes the former, his 
objection falls; if he takes the latter, he involves him- 
self in it, and must fall under it. 

III. We deny that brutes ever exhibit those mental 
phenomena which we have made the basis of our ar- 
guments. If this can be sustained, the objection falls, 
and our arguments will bear the souls of men upward 
to the immortal world, without carrying v^ith them the 
spirits of brutes that go downward to the earth. Our 
arguments are founded exclusively upon the intellect- 
ual and moral pnenomena of the human mind, which 
brutes never exhibit. That brutes have some sort of 
mind, we admit ; and that where there is mind, there 
^s something more than matter, something su[)erior to 
matter, we affirm. Some spirits are of a higher order 
than others, and hence the fact that brutes have minds, 
and per-consequence have associated with their mate- 
rial orgai'Aization au inferior spiritual natu.e^ neither 



162 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



prcv^es them immortal, or invalidates the argument by 
which we have proved man's spiritual nature from his 
mental phenomena, and his immortality from his spirit- 
ual nature. We will now enter upon our main de- 
fence, after stating the points. 

The reader will bear in mind that we have not, and 
do not argue that the human soul will necessarily al- 
ways exist, because it is an immaterial spirit. We only 
argue that it nra>' exist forever, and that it will exist 
forever if left to the operations of the laws of its own 
elemental nature, and further, that it cannot be destroyed 
by the action of material agents. We have not, and 
do not, deny that God can annihilate the human soul, 
we insist that he can, but we insist at the same time, 
that should God annihilate the soul, it would not be 
by an exertion of power upon it, but by simply with- 
drawing from it that power which created it, and which 
sustains it. leaving it to vanish from existence. When 
we say that God could do this, we mean no more than 
that it is physically possible ; we do not believe he 
could do it consistently, because he has given to man a 
nature which sustains a relation to the future world, 
and the principles of his moral government require that 
man should meet the retributions of that world. Here 
th-en is the point, the phenomena of the human mind, 
upon which we have based our arguments, clearly ally 
man to a future state: while brutes are so clearly 
wanting in all those mental qualities which ally man 
to a future state, as to prove as clearly that they can 
sustain no relation to the future world. We think the 
argument turns on this one question. Is the intelligenc 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



163 



of men and brutes the same in kind, the difierence beins: 
i • - 

I only iu the circumstance that a man has more of the 

I same thing than a brute ; or, is the intelligence of men 
and brutes essentially different in nature ? We take 
the latter position, and upon this do we rest our main 

j defence against the ob^'ection under consideration. We 

II deal frankly with opponents, ana admit that if the 
minds of men and brutes are the same in nature only 
differing in degree, we must yield to the objection, and 

j give up the immortality of the human soul, or admit 
I the immortality of brutes. So, on the other hand, if 
I we can show that the minds of men and brutes differ 
I essentially in nature, the objection must fall. We have 
now narrowed the subject do A^n to a single point, 
which is the difference between human iDtelligence and 
brute intelligence. This difference, we affirm, lies not 
in degree, but in nature. 

It is not denied that men and brutes have some 
f things in common. They both possess sensation an^ 
perception, and brutes possess the first of these in as 
high a state of perfection as man ] they can feel, see, 
hear, taste, and smell, as acutely as men. But these 
constitute their entire mental powers and susceptibili- 
ties, and are the basis of all the mental phenomena 
they exhibit. To these man has added reason, involv- 
ing consciousness, will, memory, conscience, hopes and 
fears, which brutes have not; and these alone can con- 
stitute a moral agent, sustaining a relation to the retri- 
butions of a future state. 

Sensation and perception, without reason amount 
only to instinct, which we admit brutes have. Instinct 



164 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



is that power and disposition of mind by which animals 
are spontaneously led to do whatever is necessary for 
their preservation, and the continuance of their kind, 
independent of instruction and experience. This, and 
not reason, leads the bee to form her comb, the spider 
to weave his web, and the beaver to build his house ; 
it IS this that impels the infant, in whom reason is not 
yet developed, to draw its first nutriment with as per- 
fect skill as it ever can, and with a skill which, in nine 
cases out of ten, is lost in after years beyond the power 
of reason to recall. But all this differs widely from 
reason, which distinguishes men from brutes, and we 
will now state some of the principal points, with their 
bearing on the subject. 

1. Instinct never improves, while it is the very na- 
ture of reason to progress. Animals acting from in- 
stinct, perform the same acts in the same way for ten 
thousand generations in succession ; while men, acting 
from reason, vary their plans, improve their skill, and 
push their results onward towards perfection. Rea- 
son is that faculty which discovers resemblances, 
compares,judges and deduces conclusions. This results 
from what some call apperception, that is, pure thought. 
Animals have sensation and perception, but they never 
think ; their mental operations are limited to the sphere 
of sensation and perception, while men abstract them- 
selves from all that is external, and operate within by 
what is purely a thinking process • they think of things 
far away, of things they never saw, heard, felt, tasted 
or smelt; they think of thoughts, and compare 
thought with thought, and thing with thing. This is 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



165 



a mental process oi wnich animals are clearly incapa- 
ble; and it is this that lays the foundation of improve- 
ment; nence, men progress onward, aud still onward 
to a higher destiny, while animals remain the same 
from age to age. Again, animal instinct never imparts 
to its fellow animal, the limited education it is capable 
of receiving from the more skilful hand of man. Some 
years since the gullible portions of community, gaped 
with wonder at the performance of a learned pig, but 
one learned pig never educated his fellow pig in the arts 
of his profession, but the human mind under the influ- 
ence of the higher endowments of reason, imparts its 
acquisitions to fellow minds. Thus the human mind 
is capable of improving itself, wnile each can impart 
its own acquisitions, and receive the acquisitions of 
others, marking the race distinctly and undeniably as 
destined for, and capable of perpetual improvement, 
which indicates a preparation for a higher state of ex- 
istence, and allies the race to some future destiny. 
On the other hand, as animals have not the mental ele- 
ments of intellectual improvement, as none have con- 
ceived and developed philantropic schemes for the im^- 
provement of their respective species, and as none eveif 
have'^m proved and broken the chain which bound them 
to the sphere and destiny of an instinctive brute ances- 
try ] they are not only separated from man by a chasm, 
so wide that no art of reasoning can link them on to 
human destiny, but they are distinctly marked as de- 
signed only for their present sphere, exhibiting no ele- 
ments, suited to, and making no preparation for a higher 
destiny. 



166 



IMMORTALITY 0? THE SOtTl 



2. Men possess consciousness ; brutes do not. As 
consciousness is that notice which the mind takes of 
itself, of its own operations and modes of existence, it 
involves a purely thinking process or reflection, which 
brutes cannot perform, they being only capable of sen* 
sation and perception as shown above. To explain, 
you may throw hot water upon a man, and a brute, 
and they both experience pain* this pain is called sen* 
gation. But at the same time, both learn that hot 
water will produce pain, and both the man and the 
brute will be afraid of hot water in future, wherever 
they m_eet with it. This knowledge* or idea which They 
obtain of the quality of hot water is called perception, 
that is, they perceive the relation between the sensation, 
the pain, and the external object, hot water, that pro- 
duced the sensation, otherwise they would not avoid hot 
water the next time they met with it. But here the brute 
stops, never thinking about the sensation or perception, 
only as they are revived by the presence of hot water; 
while the man will a thousand times call them up and 
spend seasons in thinking about them, will review all 
the circumstances a thousand miles from the place where 
it happened, and without the presence of hot water to 
revive the sensation and perception. ' This is thought 
or reflection, and here comes in what is called con- 
sciousness of identity. While the brute never thinks of 
the sensation in the absence of the place and agent that 
produced it, norof the perception of the quality of hot wa° 
ter, only when it is present; the man refl-ects on the whole 
matter away from the place, and in the absence of the 
agent that produced the sensation, and is conscious of 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



167 



his own identity ; that is, he takes notice that the mind 
that now thinks, is the same mind that so many years 
ago in such a place, by contact with hot water received 
such a sensation, and obtained such a perception of the 
quality of the external object that produced the sensa- 
tion. This is absolutely essential to a moral nature, 
and future accountability for present or past conduct, 
and as men possess it, they are allied to a future retri- 
bution ] and as brutes have it not, they cannot be al- 
lied to a future retribution. 

3. Men possess volition and will; brutes do not. 
Brutes exercise a kind of choice, as a horse prefers fresh 
grass to dry hay,and as an animal often exhibits obstina- 
cy by preferring to go in one direction, rather than to be 
driven in another, but these are only the impulses of 
instinct. The will of man, which i-nvolves accounta- 
bility, is a very ditierent thing. A rational will suppo- 
ses judgment a power to compare different objects 
which operates as motives, and to determine their com- 
parative value. Brutes are never influenced by motives 
addressed to the understanding. An ox will make 
a choice of two bundles of hay, founded upon the sense 
of smell or taste; but not upon a comparison of their 
relative nutriment or power to sustain life, nor even 
upon their comparative size, for this would require re- 
flection, comparison and judgm.ent which constitute the 
elements of reason, which brutes never exhibit. " 

4. Men possess the power of memory, which brutes 
Have not. We know that superficial observers often 
affirm that animals have memory, but it is for want of 
discrimination that they affirm this. They mistake mere 



168 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



sensation and perception for memory. A horse may 
fall through a bridge, and when he approaches that 
bridge again, or perhaps some other bridge, he will be 
alarmed: but this is not memory: the philosophy is 
this, the presence of the bridge revives the painful sen- 
sation and the perception, that the bridge produced the 
sensation. To remember it, would be to retain a know- 
ledge of it, and to make it a subject of thought and re- 
flection^en years afterwards, a hundred miles from the 
place and object that produced the sensation. This 
men do, but horses never. 

A dog may be in the habit of committing depreda- 
tions in the cellar, and you will not cure him by pun- 
ishing him in the barn. To render punishment effec- 
tual, it mu-st be inflicted in connection with the place 
where the mischief is done, or in connection with the 
thing injured, and then, though the animal has no mem- 
ory of the transactions, beyond the mere sensation and 
perception, their presence revives them, and prevents a 
repetition of the fault. 

5. Men have conscience but brutes have none. Some 
may have supposed that they have seen animals exhi- 
bit signs of conscience, upon the same principle that they 
have attribute 1 to them the faculty of memory. The 
signs of compunction which they have thought them to 
exhibit, have grown out of the painful sensations of pun- 
ishment for the same or similar offences, which have 
been revived by the sameness of the present offence or 
contiguhy cf place. Tnis is clear from two circum- 
stdnces. First, animals never exhibit what are called 
signs of conscious guilt, for offences for whhich they 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



169 



have never been punished. Secondly, these signs, 
when they appear, are never increased, but uniformly 
disappear under the influence of kind treatment. Kind 
treatment often awakens compunction in man, but never 
in an animal. 

6. Men are the subjects of hopes and fears, joys and 
sorrows, beyond the influence of their present sensa- 
tions, but brutes are not. Man looks back to the dawn 
of his being, and sorrows, and rejoices over what is 
past, while, to the brute, the past has no existence, only 
so much as lives in present sensations. Man looks 
forward and experiences the joy of hope, and the tor- 
njent of fear, gathered from periods far distant in the 
future, while, with brutes, futurity is all a blank be- 
yond what is connected with their present sensations. 

After perusing this defence, we will cheerfully sub- 
mit it to the candid reader, whether the future existence 
of brutes follows from our argument, founded upon the 
phenomena of the human mind. 



SECTION II. 

Keply to the assumption that the term death expresses annihil* 
tion, when applied to the punishment of sinners. 

It is urged in support of annihilation that the pun- 
ishment of sinners is termed death, which it is insisted 
signifies a loss of conscious existence. So far as we 
know, this position is held and urged by every advo- 
cate of annihilation without a single exception, and is. 



170 



lAlMOKTALiTY OF THE SOUL. 



therefore, entitled to a caidid and serious reply. We 
adin t that the punishment of sin is termed death. 

The soul that sinneth it shall die." " The wages of 
sin is death." " S ii when finished brii geth forth 
death.' In the light of these p ositive declarations of 
God's word, th3 only question that can be deba-ed is, 
what is dedth ? If death be annihilation, if lo die be 
to cease to exist, anl if to be dead is to have no exist- 
ence, then is the argument conclusive against us ; but 
if the reverse of these can be maintained, the argu- 
ment will ba fully answered, and«can have no force as 
an objection to our theory of the immortality of the 
soul. We will now reply to the position as follows : 

1. To assume that death is the extinction of being, 
is to beg the question in dispute, by taking for granted 
that which should bo proved. Instead of proving that 
death means the extinction of being, they only prove 
that the punishment of the wicked is called death, a 
point which we frankly admit. The main point to be 
proved is, that death necessarily means annihilation, 
or the extinction of being ; and this never has, and 
never can be proved, as will be seen before this reply 
is concluded. On the other hand, we have proved by 
the whole series of arguments under the head of the 
intermediate state, that death is not the dissolution of 
beino;. bat only of the body, that the soul lives after 
the body is dead. 

2. The terra death is applied to both the righteous 
and the wicked, and it is affirmed, Heb. ix. 27, It 
is appointed unto men once to die^ and after this the 
judgment." All good men die as well as bad men, 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



171 



■which is sufficient of itself to show the absurdity of 
relying upon the force of the word death, to prove 
what the punishment of sin is, and that it is annihila- 
tion or extinction of being. If the word " death," ex- 
presses in its true sense, the punishment of sin, and 
that be annihilation, then when the righteous are said 
to die, or to be dead, they must receive the punish- 
ment of sin in the shape of annihilation 

3. There is nothing in the etymology, or common 
scriptural use of the word, to justify the assumption 
that it means annihilation. A few references will 
show this. We will commence with a text which 
clearly refers to death as a punishment for sin. 

Rom. vi. 23. " The wages of sin is death ; but the 
gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our 
Lord." The word here rendered death, in the original 
Greek, is, thanatos. This word is defined thus : 
"Death, i. e. the extinction of life; exposure to dan- 
ger of death, disease, pestilence, spiritual death ; un- 
happiness, misery, condemnation, punishment, eternal 
death, eternal unchanging state of wretchedness and 
misery. (See the Polymicrian Greek Lexicon.) — 
Grove's Greek and English Dictionary defines the 
word thus : " Death, imminent danger ; a plague, 
pestilence." The word is derived from the verb, 
thnesko^ which is defined thus : " To die, fall, perish, 
expire." From this it is seen that by going back to 
the original, we get no nearer the idea of annihilation 
than we are with the plain English, and in the English 
language we may best settle it. 

In the text above quoted^ it will not be denied that 



172 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SSOUL. 



death and eternal life are opposed to each other, and 
by their different significations, mark the difference in 
the destiny of the saved and lost. What then is life? 
The word is zoe^ and has as many significations as the 
word death has, the first of which is, life." We 
maintain that in its primary meaning, thanatos, death, 
denotes simply what we call death, the death of the 
body, no more and no less; and that zoe, life, denotes 
natural life, the life which we now live. We will 
give two cases of each. Luke ii. 28. " It was 
revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should 
not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ." — 
Mark ix. 1. " There be some of them that stand here, 
which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the 
kingdom of God come with power." In both these 
texts the word rendered death is the same as in Rom. 
vi. 24, where it is said, " the wages of sin is death." 
In these two texts all must see that the common death 
of all men is meant, that which both saints and sin- 
ners die. The punishment of sin is not meant. The 
other word zoe, life, is used, Luke xvi. 25. " Thou 
in thy life time receivedst thy good things." Acts xvii. 
25. " He giveth to all life and breath, and all things." 
In both these texts the w^ord is used to denote the ani- 
mated existence which we now possess, the life we 
now live. Thus we have the primary meaning of 
these words, and yet in Rom, vi. 23, one is used to 
denote the punishment of the wicked, and the other to 
denote the happiness of the righteous. They a.re used 
in opposition to each other ; if, therefore, death means 
loss of existence, annihilation, eternal life means no 



IMMORTALITY OP THE SOUL- 



173 



more than continued being. If eternal life means only 
eternal conscious existence, then endless torment 
would be eternal life ; and if life in thifi cuse means 
more than existence- then death must mean something 
different from mere loss of existence. The truth is, 
death and life are both used in a figurative sense, and 
hence there is not the least proof that death signifies 
annihilation, when it is used to denote the punishment 
of sin. The word death is often used when loss of 
existence cannot be meant, as we will now show. — 
Matt. viii. 22. Follow me ; and let the dead bury 
their dead." Here death is used in two senses. The 
dead to be buried, were those who were literally dead; 
and those who were to bury them, were the spiritually 
dead, dead in sin. 

Eph. V. 14. ^' Awake thou that sleepest, and arise 
from the dead, and Christ shall give you light." Those 
said to be dead in this text, were not annihilated. — 
They were only spiritually dead, through a loss of the 
favor and image of God. 

Col. ii. 20. " If ye be dead with Christ from the 
rudiments of the world, why as though living in the 
world, are ye subject to ordinances V Here death does 
not mean loss of existence, but non-conformity to this 
world, and conformity to Christ. 

Eph. ii. 1. "You hath he quickened who were 
dead in trespasses and sins." They had never been 
annihilated, but were only dead in the sense of aliena- 
tion from God by wicked works. 

I. Tim. V. 6. "But she that liveth in pleasure is 
dead while she liveth." To live in sin, then, is to be 



174 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOTTI, 



dead while we live^ to be spiritually dead while we 
are naturally alive. 

Rev. iii. 1. "I know thy works, that thou hast a 
name, that thou livest, and art dead." In what sense 
were they dead 1 They were not annihilated : they 
had not lost their existence; nor were their bodies 
dead. Their souls were dead, in the sense in which 
all sinners are said to be dead, and the only sense in 
which souls ever die. They were dead by being des- 
titute of the life, and love, and peace of God in their 
souls. Sinners are dead in the sense of Eph. iv. 18. 
" Being alienated from the life of God through the ig- 
norance that is in them, because of the blindness of 
their heart." 

From what has been said, it is clear ttiat sinners are 
said to be dead in consequence of their alienation from 
God, and this fact being understood, it is natural that 
the term, death, should be employed to denote their 
final and irrecoverable alienation, with the punishment 
it will involve, when God shall judge and sentence 
them. 

But it may be urged that we read of a '-second 
death," and that that is annihilation. We do read of a 
second death, but where is the proof that it means an- 
nihilation ? The expression, " second death,'' occurs 
four times in the book of Revelations, as follows : 

Rev. ii. 11. " He that overcometh shall not be hurt 
of the second death." Whatever else may be meant 
in this text, there is no annihilation in it. The second 
death is something that can hurt, some evil or suffer- 
ing to be endured, some active principle or positive 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



175 



existence ; but annibilation is a nonentity ; it implies 
absolutely nothing, and cannot hurt, for where it exists 
there is nothing to hurt or to be hurt 

Chap. XX. 6. " Blessed and holy is he that hath 
part in the first resurrection : on such the second death 
hath no power." This text cannot mean annihilation, 
for it being a nonentity, involving absolute non-exist- 
ence, can have no power over anything. 

Verse 14. " Death and hell were cast into the lake 
of fire. This is the second death," Death is here 
personified, that is common death ; as the general res- 
urrection has taken place, and as there will be no more 
dying in the common sense, death is represented as 
being destroyed. Hell is here so rendered, from hades, 
which denotes the place of separate spirits, and as all 
these will have been recalled, at the general resurrec- 
tion, this place of spirits is said to be cast into the lake 
of fire. " This is the second death 5" but it is death 
itself that is cast in, and if death means annihilation, 
then annihilation is cast into the lake of fire. It can- 
not mean the annihilation of sinners, for they too were 
also, in the 15th verse, cast into the lake of fire. 

Chap. xxi. 8. "But the fearful, and unbelieving, 
and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, 
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars shall have 
their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brim- 
stone, which is the second death." This does not im- 
ply annihilation, but directly the reverse. Their part 
is punishment, suffering, and not annihilation, as may 
be seen from Chap. xx. 10. We trust we have now 
shown that death does not signify annihilation. 



176 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOVJ^ 



SECTION III, 

Beply to the assumption that the word destruction means annihi- 
lation, or loss of conscious existence 

The word destruction, in a few instances, is applied 
to the end of the wicked^ and hence it is argued that 
hey will be annihilated, or cease to exist. The argu- 
ment assumes that destruction means annihilation, or 
loss of existence, and that to destroy is to reduce to a 
state of nonentity. This, we, of course, do not admit, 
and will attempt to prove that the word has no such 
meaning, when applied to the destiny of the wicked. 
We will commence with the strongest text relied upon 
by annihilationists. 

2 Thes. i. 9. " Who shall be punished with ever- 
lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and 
from the glory of his power." If this text does not 
prove that the wicked will cease to exist, it cannot be 
proved from any use made of the word destruction in 
the IScriptures. Around this text then we will rally 
our reply and meet the argument on its strongest 
ground. 

I. The word destruction, does not necessarily mean 
loss of existence. The Greek word is olethron^ and is 
thus defined in Grove's Greek and English Dictionary: 
Destruction, ruin, plague, pestilence ] death ; a wretch, 
villain." In the Polymicrian Greek Lexicon it is de- 
fined thus : " Perdition, destruction, ruin, misery." — 
Were we to leave the subject without another remark, 
the judicious reader would never rely upon the mean- 
ing of the word destruction, to prove annihilation in 



MMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



177 



the face of all the direct evidence that has heen offered 
on the other side. Here are three renderings of which 
it will admit, either of which will make perfect sense, 
and be perfectly consistent with the endless existence 
of those threatened with destruction. The text, ac- 
cording to the definitions above given, might be trans 
lated thus : " Who shall be punished with everlasting 
perdition." Or thus : Who shall be punished with 
everlasting ruin." Or thus : " Who shall be punished 
j with everlasting misery." This is sufficient to show 
i that no certain conclusion can be drawn from the 
I meaning of the word in favor of annihilation, 
j 11. A fair exegesis of the text cannot fail to show 
that in this particular case, destruction cannot mean 
annihilation. There are three points in the text which 
are against the idea of annihilation. 

1. This everlasting destruction is a punishment, 
which has been shown to be suffering and not annihi- 

I , lation. In the sixth verse the same punishment is 
' called tribulation, which implies suffering, and not loss 
of existence. 

2. The punishment threatened, which is called tribu- 
lation, is everlasting destruction. The word, everlast- 
ing, cannot well be applied to any term denoting an- 
nihilation. If the destruction be an utter extinction of 
being, it is necessarily irrecoverable, as there will then 
be nothing where such destruction has taken effect, 
and where nothing is, nothing must ever remain. God 
himself cannot restore a person thus destroyed. There 

1 being an entire loes of existence, a ceasing to exist, 
there is nothing to be restored. God can create an- 



178 



KVSMORTALITT OF THE SOUL. 



other being but as it cannot be moulded out of the de« 
funct being, that having no existence, having ceased to 
exist, and, as per-consequence, God must form the 
new being out of some other material, or from nothing, 
it cannot be the same creature that was, but which 
has ceased to be. Destruction, therefore, if it signifies 
loss of existence, necessarily implies a loss beyond 
restoration, and to call it everlasting is an abuse of 
language ; the word everlasting, adds no force to de- 
struction, if such be its meaning, while it implies that 
there may be a destruction which is not everlasting, 
and to admit this would be to abandon the argument 
founded upon the meaning of this term. Destruction 
is a noun, and everlasting is an adjective added to it, 
to qualify its meaning. If, then, the word destruction 
signifies an entire loss of existence, in the sense of an- 
nihilation, the adjective adds no quality to it, nor can 
it express any quality concsrning it which the noun 
does not express without the adjective. The very fact, 
therefore, that the word destruction has everlasting ap- 
pended to it, proves, beyond a doubt, that the word 
does not of itself express an entire loss of existence or 
annihilation, and the argument designed to prove that 
the wicked will cease to exist, being based upon it, 
must fall, unless it has some other and more sufficient 
support. 

3. The nature of this punishment called destruction, 
proves it not to be annihilation. It consists in being 
banished " from the presence of the Lord and the glory 
of his power." The expression, " from the presence 
of the Lord and from the glory of his power," clearly im- 



I 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 179 

plies exclusion from the immediate presence and glory 
of God, which will constitute the happiness of the 
righteous. Banishment and annihilation are not the 
same, and are irreconcilable with each other. . 

We know that some have urged this idea of banish- 
ment from the presence of the Lord, as positive proof 
of annihilation, on the ground that God is everywhere, 
and that there is no such thing as going from his presence, 
only by going out of existence. This view is so weak 
and unscriptural, that it only proves how severely 
those feel pressed who adopt it. It is not denied that 
God's presence is everywhere in one sense, but not in 
the sense in which he is said to be in heaven. It is 
i written, " no man hath seen God at any time y\ and 
again, it is written, " blessed are the pure in heart, for 
,j they shall see God." We are taught to pray, " Our 
Father who art in heaven." God is then in heaven, 
in a sense in which he is not everywhere, otherwise 
we might just as well pray, our Father who art on 
' earth, or in hell. It is written again, Isa. lix. 2, 
" Your iniquities have separated between you and 
your God." There is a sense then in which we may 
be separated from God, and banished from his pres- 
ence 5 that is from his visible and glorious presence, 
which angels enjoy, and which saints shall enjoy. 
The Saviour prayed, John xvii. 24. " Father, I will 
that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me 
where I am, that they may behold my glory." But to 
, the unbelieving, he said, Luke xiii. 28, "Ye shall 
see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the proph- 
' ets, in the kingdom of God, and you, yourselves thrust 



180 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOtJL. 



out." Again, it is written, Matt. xxv. 41, " Depart 
from me ye cursed and again, verse 46, " These 
shall go away into everlasting punishment." These 
texts clearly show what is meant by the expression, 
^' from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of 
Ms power." It does not mean exclusion from his gen- 
eral presence, in the sense in which he is everywhere, 
but it means exclusion from his favor and visible 
presence, which the saints will see and enjoy in heaven 
This is the everlasting destruction which is threatened, 
a punishment consisting in banishment from the pres- 
ence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, and 
a punishment consisting in such an exclusion from 
heaven, absolutely forbids the idea of annihilation. 
Thus it appears that a fair exegesis of the text, proves 
that annihilation cannot be meant. 

in. A few illustrations of the use of the word, 
destruction, in other senses, must close these remarks. 

Hosea xiii. 9. " 0 Israel, thou hast destroyed thy- 
self ; but in me is thy help." Destruction here does 
not mean loss of existence, but only injury or ruin. 

1 Cor. i. 19. "I will destroy the wisdom of the 
wise." Here destruction means no more than to ex- 
pose and confound, by showing its false pretensions. 

Rom. iii. 16. "Destruction and misery are in their 
ways." Here destruction means ruin or perdition. 
To make misery to lie in their path, after annihilation, 
would not make very good sense. 

Matt. vii. 13. " Broad is the way that leadeth to 
destruction." In this text destruction means ruin or 
perdition. 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOULi 



181 



Luke xvii. 27. The flood came and destroyed 
them all." Here destruction means death by drown- 
ing. 

Acts ix. 21. "Is not this he that destroyed them 
which called on his name in Jerusalem V Here des- 
troy means to persecute, or at most to kill ; to kill 
the body," as Christ called it. 

Matt. V. 17. " Think not that I am come to destroy 
the law." Here destroy means to repeal or abrogate. 
With these remarks, we dismiss our consideration of 
the word destruction. 



SECTION IV, 

Keply to the assumption that the word perish signifies annihi- 
lation. 

The words perish, perished^ and perisheth, being ap- 
plied to the end of the wicked, are urged as positive 
proof that they will cease to exist. These words are 
nowhere used to describe or express the quality of the 
punishment of sin, but are in a few instances employed 
in a manner to assert the general fact of punishment^ 
by implication at least. The following are the princi- 
pal, if not all the texts, in which it can be claimed that 
the final punishment of sinners is termed perishing. In 
some of these, it may be doubted whether the final 
state of sinners is referred to. 

Luke xiii. 3. " Except ye repent, ye shall all like- 
wise perish." John iii. 15, 16. " That whosoever be- 



182 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SO^L. 



lieveth in him might not perish, but have everlasting 
life." Rom. ii. 12. " As many as have sinned without 
law, shall also perish without law." 1 Cor. xv. 18. 
" Then they also which have fallen asleep in Christ, 
are perished." 2 Peter, ii. 12. " Shall utterly perish in 
their own corruption.'' Jude 11. " Woe unto them 1 
for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily 
after the error of Balaam for reward, and perish in the 
gainsaying of Core." 

In these few texts, the reader may see at a glance, 
the substance of all the evidence of annihilation, which 
the Scriptures furnish by the use of the word perish, to 
describe the end of sinners. • An argument in support 
of a point so awfully important, based upon such slight 
and uncertain grounds, cannot exert much influence 
with the reflecting. We will, however, give it a re- 
view. 

1. The original word rendered perish in these texts, 
is very far from settling the question in favor of anni- 
hilation, or the final extinction of the wicked. Let us 
look at each text by itself. Luke xiii. 3. Ye shall 
all likewise perish." The Greek word here used, is 
apoleisthe ; it is the second person, plural, of apolhimi, 
or apolluo^ which is defined thus : " To abolish, destroy, 
ruin; to kill, slay j to lose ; apolluamai, to be ruined, 
lost, undone , to perish, decay. (See Grove's Greek and 
English Dictionary.) Surely, the candid reader can see 
no certain proof of annihilation in this word as used in 
this text. As Christ was speaking of those who had 
suffered temporal death, it is only by inference that it 
can be made to mean anything more when he told his 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUX. 



183 



hearers that they should also perish. John iii. 15, 16. 
^' Might not perish." This is admitted to refer to the 
Anal consequences of sin, in the case of those who are 
not saved through faith in Christ. But what is it to 
perish ? Here the Vv^ord is apoletai^ which is hut an- 
other form of apollumi. and has its explanation ahove. 
It might, therefore, be rendered, might not be destroyed ; 
jnight not be ruined ; might not be lost ; or might not 
be undone. This makes the text perfectfy plain, with- 
out supposing annihilation. In Romans ii. 12, there is 
nothing peculiar which has not a sufficient explanation 
above, as the same word is there translated perish. ' 

1 Cor. XV. 17, 18. "If Christ be not raised, your 
faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also 
which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." These 
two verses taken together make the subject plain. The 
apostle makes the virtue of the atonement depend'upon 
the fact of the resurrection of Christ • if he was not 
raised they were yet in their sins, and of course those 
who had fell asleep in Christ, had fallen asleep in their 
sins • and having died in their sins, they are perished ; 
that is, they are ruined ; they are lost 5 or they are un- 
done, as it has been shown above that the word used 
will admit of either of these renderings. 

2 Peter, ii. 12. " Shall utterly perish in their own 
corruption." In this, another word is used in the origi- 
nal. It is Jcaiaphtharesontai, This word comes from 
hataphtheiso^ from kata. intensive, an^ phtheiro, to cor- 
rupt, and is defined^ " to mar, spoil, ruin, destroy total- 
jy • to deprave, corrupt, vitiate." 

Dr. McKnight renders the clause " shall be utterly 



184 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, 



destroyed by their own corruption." Of the nature of 
their corruption we are informed in verses 10 and 18, 
Them that walk after the flesh in the lust of unclean- 
ness." — " They allure through the lusts of the flesh, 
through mu ch wantonness, those that were clean es- 
caped from those who live in error." These were 
false teachers, and every one must see that those living 
as corruptly as is here described, must utterly fall and 
destroy themselves by their own corruption. The most 
probable mean ing of the text is, that by their corrup- 
tion they shall completely and utterly tmn themselvesj 
no reference being made to any supposed loss of exist- 
ence after the Resurrection of the dead. There have 
been such teacJb ers in our own day, and without a sin- 
gle exception, they have perished in their own corrup- 
tion; or, in common parlance, they utterly ruined 
themselves by their corruption. There are several trans- 
lations of which the text will admit, without supposing 
annihilation. They shall be utterly marred in, or by, 
their own corruption ; they shall be utterly spoiled in, 
or by, their o wn corruption ; they shall be utterly ru-* 
ined in, or by, their own corruption. These remarks 
are sufficient to show that no reliance can be placed, 
upon the word perish, as here used, in support of annt* 
hilatio n. 

T.ne common use of the word perish, in the New? 
Testament, is such as to furnish no ground for the as- 
sumption that it signifies annihilation, or loss of con- 
scious existence. A few illustrations will answer. 
Matt. viii. 25. " Lord save uSj^^^ve perish." Here per- 
ishing means only death by drowning. Chap. ix. 17, 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



185 



"The bottles perish." Here, to perish is to be rendered 
useless, or worthless, Luke xiii. 33. " It cannot be 
that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." Here, to 
punish is to die, or be put to death. Chap. xv. 17. " I 
perish with hunger." Here perishing means to die of 
hunger. 

If illustrations from the Old Testament are required, 
the following will answer : Eccle. vii. 15. " There is 
a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and 
there is a wicked man that prolongeth his days." Per- 
ishing in this text must mean death, which comes to 
the righteous, while the wicked man escapes. Isaiah 
Ivii. 1. "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth 
it to heart." Surely, perishing does not mean annihi- 
lation in this text. Jer. ix. 12. " That he may de- 
clare it, for what the land perisheth and is burnt up 
like a wilderness, that none passeth through." Here 
perishing means to be rendered barren, as waste land. 

•There are a few other texts and positions urged in 
support of the doctrine of annihilation, but we have re- 
viewed the strongest of them, with what success the 
reader must now judge. If we have been successful 
in removing the oojections we have examined, we 
think it will not be pretended that there are other 
stronger ones which we could not remove. And if we 
have not been successful in removing the objection 
which we have considered, it would be only a waste 
of time and paper, to examine others ) we will there- 
fore leave the matter to the judgment of the reader, just 
as it is. Our argument is closed, and we have only to 
add our prayer that the blessing of God may attend the 



186 



IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 



effort, and His Holy Spirit shine upon tlie minds of all 
who shall read it, to guide them into all truth. So far 
as honesty of intentions and purity of motives are con- 
cerned, we can appeal to the Searcher of hearts with con- 
fidence, and refer the whole to the day of final retribution, 
without a shadow to dim the prospect of that most in- 
teresting of all days. For happy results, we can hope 
only through the influence of the Divine Spirit. Our 
prayer is that it may appear, when God shall make up 
His jewels, that through His abounding grace, this little 
volume has beea instrumental in guiding some bewil- 
dered spirit from the land of mist and error, to the land 
of which it is said " there shall be no night there." 
Amen 



INDEX. 

Anniliilation is not the penalty of the law. . o . . . 127 

is not proved by the word death 169 

is not proved by the word destruction. . . 176 

is not proved by the word perish 181 

Bible argument, materialism 44 

against the death-sleep of the soul 95 

' against annihilation 149 

Brutes, case of, considered 159 

have sensation and perception 163 

have not reason 164 

Conscience 37, 168 

Consciousness 33, 166 

Beath does not imply annihilation 169 

Desires, nature of the, prove immateriality 38 

Brew, Samuel, extract from 61 

Destruction is not annihilation 176 

Fathers, belief of the/. 83 

General belief of mankind in immortality 64 

God, spirituality of, proves immateriality of mind 15 

Identity belongs only to the mind 33 

cannot be affirmed of the body 34, 103 



188 INDEX. 

Immateriality of mindc 9, 57, 152 

Instinct 163 

Intelligence is not a property of matter 14 

Intermediate state t , 57 

Matter cannot tMnk 14 

cannot remember 26 

]\Iemory proves immateriality 26, 167 

Mind is not matter , 9 

progress and decline of the 40 

lives after the body is dead 57 

Objections answered 159 

Penalty of the law, what it is 127 

is not annihilation withont suffering 128 

is not annihilation with suffering 134 

■ must be suffering without annihilation. . . 154 

Perishing does not imply annihilation 181 

Phrenology does not favor materialism 41 

Primitive Christians, belief of the 42 

Punishment consists of suffering 149 

duration of 151 

■ terrible nature of 152 

Punishment of the devils 154 

Soul, the human, does not die with the body. ... 57 

cannot be destroyed 57, 60 

will never be annihilated. . . . • a . 125 



SCRIPTURAL INDEI 

To all tlie principal texts quoted, and more or less 
explained, in the preceding pages. 



Book- Chapter, Vorse. Page 

Genesis. 1 2 63 

35 18 44 

Leviticus. 26 15 52 

Numbers 16 22 45 

17 15,16 46 

Deuteronomy ..11 13 52 

Job 14 22 46 

23 13 52 

« 26 13 54 

31 80 46 

" 32 8 47,54 

Psalms 90 10 98 

Proverbs 19 2 47 

20 27 53 

21 10 52 

Scclesiastes 3 21 54, 96 

9 12 185 

12 7 48 

Isaiab. 1 14 52 

" 8 15, 16 133 

" 42 1 52 

« 55 3 53 

" 57 1 185 

" 59 2 179 



190 



SCRIPTURAL INDEX, 



Jeremiah 5 

6 

9 

Ezekiel 18 

Hosea 13 

Zechariah 12 

Matthew 6 

" 7 

8 

<c ^ 

tc <tf 

12 

14 

17 

« 25 

22 

25 

Mark .9 

Luke 13 

^ ^ . I . . . . 

" 17 

« 19 

" 16 

John 3 

<5 , , , , , 4 

« 17 

Acts 7 

9 

' 23 

Bomans 1 

" 2 

« 3 

« 8 



9 


52 


8 


52 


12 


186 


4 


48 


9 


180 


1 


49 


17 


181 


13 


180 


11, 12 


137 


22 


173 


25 


184 


13 


137 


26 


80 


3 


99 


30 


133 


81,32 


100 


41 


180 


46 


187 


43, 44 


149 


3 


181 


28 


179 


27 


181 


31 


105 


22, 23 


107 


15, 16 


183 


24 


179 


2 


179 


59 


54, 110 


21 


181 


8 


81 


18 


53 


8,9 


168 


16 


180 


16 


49,65 



SCRIPTURAL INDEX. 



191 



Romans 

Corinthians 1 

2 

6 

15 

2 Corinthians 4 

5 

7 

12 

Ephesians 1 

2 

3 

5 

Philippians 1 

Colossians 2 

2 Thessalonians 1 

1 Timothy 6 

Hebrews... 2 

; 10 

12 

James 2 

2 Peter 2 

Revelations 2 

3 

6 

« 11 

14 

« 20 



21 



35, 88, 39 


111 


19 


180 


11 


49, 54 


20 


5D 


17, 18 


181 


16 


50 


1,6,8 


114 


1 


50 


2-4 


116 


10 


118 


1 


173 


16 


119 


14 


173 


21, 23, 24 


119 


20 


173 


19 


176 


6 


173 


14, 15 


156 


28, 29 


153 


28 


54 


26 


50 


12 


183 


11 


174 


1 


174 


9 


121 


14, 15 


150 


11 


162 


6, 14 


175 


10 


162 


% 


175 



NOTICES FROM THE RELIGIOUS PRESS. 



Of the necessity of a formal proof of the soul's im- 
mortality, which the author of this little work alleges, 
we are not so competent to judge. But v/e feel deeply 
indebted to him for the research and ability evinced in 
the argument. It is incomparably the most compact 
and conclusive work on this all-important topic, that 
we have ever m.et with. The arguments are mar- 
shaled with skill and energy, and the style is of that 
sharp, clear quality, that assists the logic which it con- 
veys. We think that theologians will be pleased with 
the work ; and for the conviction of the popular mind, 
especidUy where this fundamental article of faith has 
been assailed, we are sure no work can be obtained so 
apt and so safe. — N. Y. Evangelist, 



An interesting argument by a forcible writer for the 
immortality of the soul, and against the doctrine that 
after the Resurrection the finally impenitent will be an- 
nihilated. Whether such an argument is needed, or is 
likely to be useful, we have no means of judging with 
confidence. A man who really thought himself a brute, 
would seem to us a nearly conclnsive argument for the 
truth of his position. Those, hov/ever, who are inter- 
ested in the discussion of the question, will find that 
Mr. Lee has treated it with ability and candor. — Inde- 
pendent. 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 



This volume is a republication of series of articles 
which had lately appeared in the True Wesley an. All 
the established arguments in proof of the great doc- 
trine involved in its title, are heie well presented in an 
original arrangement, while especial attention is given 
to the refutation of the doctrine of the annihilation of 
the wicked, as preached by the Millerites. The sub- 
ject is thoroughly treated, presenting a perfect antidote 
to the false teachings of Storrs and his disciples. — Z. 
Heralds 

In this little volume we have the leading arguments 
for the immortality of the soul, ably and lucidly pre- 
sented in a compact form, with a full index of the pas- 
sages of Scripture quoted in the discussion. Such a 
work cannot fail of being useful to all classes of read- 
ers, and especially to Christians, who should, always 
be ready to reply to the infidel, and lead him into the 
truth. — JV. F. Recorder, 



In this little volume can be found all the essential 
features of this momentuous subject. It is the most 
compact and conclusive work on this topic that has 
come under our observation. There is great skill and 
energy displayed in the arguments, and the style, being 
of a penetrating and clear character, gives power to 
the logic of the author. It is well designed to meet 
the exigencies of the times, as it opposes that form of 
infidelity which has often taken shelter under the 
name and sanction of Biblical truth. It is a work that 
should be in the hands of our ministers. It is also use- 
ful to the young christian j it will guard him against 
the assaults of infidelity — on several points giving 
them a weapon with which he can defend himself 
against false reasonings upon this subject. There is 
connected with it a full alphabetical and scriptural in- 



1 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

dex, SO that my point treated in the work can immedi- 
ately be found. We hope this little work will have an 
extensive circulation. 

A few copies of the above work are for sale at this 
o39ice. — Christian Herald, Newhuryport. 

The author of this little volvme, of less than 200 
pa^es, has by some means acquired the very creditable 
appellation of the " logical Lee." And certainly by 
this effort of his pen he furnishes no unworthy proof 
that the acquisition is not adventitious ; but, on the 
contrary, is well deserved. • The work is divided into 
four chapters, which are sub-divided into twenty 
sections. In the first chapter he illustrates and estab- 
lishes the proposition, that " mind is spirit and not 
matter." In the second, his object is to show that the 
^ soul of man does not die with the body, but maintains 
a conscious existence after the body is dead." In the 
third, his logical powers are put in requisition to prove 
that " the wicked will not be annihilated, or cease to 
exist, at, nor subsequently to, the general resurrection." 
And in the fourth, he fairly states objections that may 
arise, and, as I judge, triumphantly answers them. 

The subject discussed is one of vast important to all 
men, in every age and country. Philosophers, re- 
nowned in history, kindled their brightest lights to 
discover and transmit the truth in the premises; and 
divines, with the clearer light of revelation, have grate- 
fully rejoiced that it is no longer " the question" — 
whether, "if a man die he shall live again." But, 
though God, who cannot lie, has said, "there is a spirit 
in man," it is evident Mr. Lee has met with some men, 
who, doubting, would brutalize the divine image ! The 
reader will perceive he writes in view of such humilia- 
ting heresies. Yet his book is by no means to be re- 
garded as of temporary and local interest. It is a con- 
densation of lights scattered in too many volumes easily 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 



to be collected, and, nevertheless, is not a collection of 
scraps, evincing the labor of a mere compiler. It is a 
work stamped with the characteristic of careful think- 
ing, sound reasoning, original conception, and Scriptural 
teaching. It is v/orthy of a longer notice; but, as the 
shorter the article, the more likely it is to be read; and 
as the object is to commend it to all who wish to see 
the rights and honor of man maintained ; by this brief 
notice I commend it to all who either believe or doubt 
tbat man is distinguished from other animals by the 
immortality of his nature. — Pittsburgh Advocale and 
Journal^ 

The Immortality of the Soul. By Luther Lee. 
This is an 18mo. volume, of 191 pages, in which the 
author has done good justice to the sublime subject of 
man's immortality. Many of the arguments are origin- 
al and striking, and the whole discussion, is conducted 
with much discrimination and ability. It is well adapt- 
ed to the times, and especially to those sections of tne 
country where the doctrine of the annihilation of the 
wicked is preached. A good book ; and w^orthy of 
extensive circulation. New York : L. C. Matlaek. — 
Christian Advocate and Journal, 



i 

! 

il 
1 

'l 

11 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 014 652 902 1 • 



